Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with)—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation (Gas Consolidation) Bill [Lords].

Ossett Corporation Water Bill [Lords],

Bills to be read a Second time.

Madras Railway Annuities Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Port of London and Midland Railway Bill,

To be read the Third time To-morrow.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS OFFICE, ACTON.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is able to give the date when the pensions office at Acton will be completed and fully occupied: what the total number of staff will amount to; and what will have been, approximately, the cost of the building?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. GILMOUR (for the First Commissioner of Works): The building is now practically complete, and will be holding its full complement, a staff of 6,000, by the middle of May. It is difficult to give the cost until the outstanding claims of contractors have been received and examined, but it is expected that the total cost of the scheme, including the cost of the main building and of the hutting and the expenditure on furniture and removals, will not exceed £503,000.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: As this is probably the largest office in the world, and in many ways the most complete, is it intended there should be a formal opening of it?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir; not that I am aware of.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR PENSIONS (STATISTICS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is able to give approximate figures showing how War pensions in this country compare with those given in France, Belgium, and Italy?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a comparative statement showing the War pension rates in various countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Air how many paid members comprise the Aeronautical Research Committee; how much is paid to them and how they are paid; how many sittings have been held during the last year; what was the total expenditure involved; have the number of sittings increased; and will he reduce the expenditure upon this service?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Captain Guest): With the permission of the Noble Lord, I will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT, the particulars being rather long.

Following is the reply:

The Aeronautical Research Committee works mainly through Sub-committees and including the latter, the paid members as
at 31st December last numbered 31. They are paid, in addition to travelling expenses, 10 guineas each per sitting, reducible to 5 guineas per sitting after 10 sittings, subject to an overriding maximum of £200 for each member of one Committee, of £350 for each member of two Committees, and of £450 for each member of three or more Committees; payment is made on vouchers certified by the Secretary and submitted to the Air Ministry. During the year ending 31st December, 1921, 88 meetings in all took place. The total expenditure in that year was £4,861, being £4,247 for fees and £614 for travelling expenses. The number of meetings has, on the whole, been considerably reduced. Steps to reduce expenditure have already been taken, and it is expected that not more than £2,000 will be spent on fees in the financial year 1922–23.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

GALLIPOLI.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to put the Peninsula of Gallipoli under the Greeks or under an Allied Commission; and if His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of an alternative plan, such as inviting the Turks to put the Peninsula under the League of Nations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): If my hon. Friend will read the communiqué issued to the Press after the Paris meeting, he will see that the intention is that the Gallipoli Peninsula should be Greek territory, but demilitarised and occupied by an Allied garrison. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

PRIME MINISTER (PARIS INTERVIEW).

Mr. HOGGE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with reference to the interview he had with the representative of the "Westminster Gazette" in Paris, which appeared in the newspaper on the 31st March, 1919?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I have no recollection of having any conversation at that time with the representative of the "West-
minster Gazette" on the subject of the Peace Treaty; but at this distance of time it is difficult to recall the names of those with whom I discussed that subject in 1919. Therefore I am not prepared to say that I did not have a conversation.
It was only yesterday for the first time that I read the full text of the interview in question, thanks to the courtesy of the Editor of the "Westminster Gazette," who was good enough to supply me with a copy of the article. As a representation of my opinions at any time it contains grave inaccuracies and omissions of essential qualifications. I observe that it purports to give at great length, not the effect of the conversation, but the actual words used by the authority interviewed. They are given in inverted commas. It is usual among reputable journalists on such occasions not only to inform the person with whom the conversation takes place that the interview will be published, but to furnish the interviewed with an opportunity of seeing what is to be published, with a view to correction. This course was not adopted in this case. Unless a full shorthand note be taken at the time—and that, I feel certain, was not done—the memory of the best journalist is apt to be at fault. In this ease there are serious errors which I should certainly have corrected had the usual method been pursued. I observe that I am supposed to have challenged the reliability of this interview at the time in the House of Commons. But, although I must have repeatedly seen this journalist since this challenge, he has never, either orally or in writing, said a word to me about it.

Mr. HOGGE: In view of the remarkable coincidence between the phraseology of the interview and the Memorandum which the Prime Minister himself circulated to the Peace Conference five days before the interview was given, did no one on his staff draw his attention to it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no recollection of that at all, but there were so many newspaper articles that it would have taken far more time than any member of my staff could possibly devote to it to read all the articles; and may I just say that, if the hon. Member will look at the two, he will find that there are very, very serious discrepancies.

Mr. HOGGE: Where are they?

The PRIME MINISTER: I need only give one, on the very important question of reparations. On the question of reparations, if the hon. Member will look at my Memorandum and at what appears in this document, there are very serious discrepancies. For instance, in this document it says that I propose to confine reparations merely to the question of material damage. I never took that view. I always thought that pensions ought to be included—always. It was my contention, throughout the whole of the Peace Conference, that pensions ought to be included, and they were included; but this interview said that I deliberately confined it to material damage. I never could have said that.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that when the Debate took place in the House of Commons in 1919, that article in the "Westminster Gazette" was given as the basis of the telegram that was sent to him, and did he not look at the article afterwards?

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact I read that particular episode, and I at once said that that article could not have been the basis. As a matter of fact, I knew that it was not the basis at all. I knew that it was another communication of a totally different character from a different quarter. That is all I said at the time—that that article could not have been the basis; nor was it the basis.

Major WOOD: How was it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to repudiate the article if he had never seen it?

The PRIME MINISTER: My recollection is—and here again it is very difficult when one is talking about something which happened three years ago—my recollection is that there was a quotation from that article which had reference to reparations. I repudiated that, and I still repudiate it. I say that that article gives a thoroughly erroneous view of the opinions which I held on the question of reparations, and which I adhere to.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Hungarian landowners in Czecho-Slovakia are receiving their rents;
and whether Hungarian landowners in Rumania have had their properties confiscated?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As to the first part of the question, I have no information. As regards the second part, I understand that the Expropriation Law in force in the old Kingdom of Rumania was automatically applied to the new provinces on their absorption; Hungarian landowners would, therefore, seem to be in the same position as landlords of any other origin.

EGYPT (MARTIAL LAW).

Major BARNES: 11.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken in Egypt to implement the pledge given by Lord Allenby to suspend martial law so as to allow Egyptians the full exercise of their political freedom?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on the 27th March.

MEXICO.

Mr. L. MALONE: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware that American trade is now supplanting British enterprise in Mexico; and whether, in the interests of British trade and to reduce unemployment in this country, the Government will consider the desirability of recognising the present Mexican Government at once?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): In view of the fact that British exports to Mexico in 1920 were nearly twice the value of those in 1913, I cannot admit that British enterprise in that country is being supplanted. As to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 27th March on this subject to the hon. Member for North Cumberland by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: Has a request for recognition been made by the Mexican Government?

Mr. WISE: Are these figures on a tonnage basis?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No. I said they were on a value basis. The whole question of recognition was fully dealt with by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the speech he made on the Motion for the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill. I think that in that my hon. Friend will find all the information he seeks.

Major CHRISTOPHER LOWTHER: In view of the fact that it is proposed under certain circumstances to recognise the Soviet Government if they adhere to the Cannes Resolutions, will those Resolutions be brought to the notice of the Mexican Government, and if they adhere to them will recognition be granted to them?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think these Resolutions are known to the whole world.

Mr. KILEY: Is there any impediment to British traders doing business in Mexico if they so desire?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is no impediment in their way, but it is obvious that, if satisfactory arrangement can be made for full recognition, the position would be easier and better than without full recognition.

SNIPE (CLOSE TIME).

Sir J. D. REES: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of his consultation with the Wild Birds Advisory Committee regarding the protection of snipe from 1st February; and when the Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Protection of Wild Birds is likely to be introduced?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOMEDEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I find that the members of the English Advisory Committee are in favour of making the close time for the snipe in England begin on the 1st February in each year. I have not yet received the views of the Scottish Committee. The draft Bill has been referred to the Committee, and when I have received and had time to
consider their observations I hope to be able to introduce it, but I cannot fix any date.

WOMEN POLICE PATROLS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 15.
asked the Home Secretary how many police authorities in the provinces had appointed women police; and what had been the effect of these appointments upon the good government of such districts?

Mr. SHORTT: According to the Returns appended to the Reports of His Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, the number of county and borough police authorities in England and Wales who were employing police women in September last was 38. I have no information on the second part of the question.

Mr. THOMSON: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman think it worth while to make the inquiry before finally deciding to abolish women police in London?

Mr. SHORTT: Because I was dealing with London.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether the services of a body of women police have been tried in any foreign country; and, if so, whether he is able to make any statement as to the results which have been achieved?

Mr. SHORTT: I understand that police women have been employed in some cities in the United States, but I am not in a position to say what the results have been.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether the results have been successful or not?

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 16.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state, in connection with the State management districts, the approximate reduction which would be shown in the percentage return to capital if in the three years ended 31st March, 1921, Excess Profits Duty and Income Tax had been paid, as
would have been the case if the various properties had remained in private hands?

Mr. SHORTT: To ascertain the particulars asked for by the hon. and gallant Member would, I understand, entail a very considerable amount of labour, and in the circumstances my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not feel justified in asking the Inland Revenue Authorities to incur the expense involved.

WOMEN PRISONERS, PLYMOUTH.

Mr. FOOT: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether the reception of women prisoners has been discontinued at the prison at Plymouth; what provision is to be made for women detained at Plymouth on remand; whether any burden will be imposed on the rates of Plymouth in respect of the conveyance of women prisoners from Plymouth to Exeter; and, if so, whether the Plymouth local authority has been consulted on the matter?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, in the interests of economy it has been decided to discontinue the female wing of the prison at Plymouth, and the chief constable has been informed that the Justices have power to remand prisoners to the local police cells. Where remand to prison is necessary, the prisoners will be sent to Exeter prison, but it is anticipated that these cases will be few in number. Any increased cost of conveyance will be very small, and half of it will be chargeable to the Exchequer Grant-in-Aid of the police. The local authority were not consulted.

Mr. FOOT: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that female prisoners conveyed from Plymouth to Exeter must have a women's escort?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, Sir; all women are taken by women escorts.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

TAXATION.

Colonel NEWMAN: 4 and 6.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) whether the position of a British subject domiciled in the Irish Free State is analogous
with regard to the payment and rate of tax, including Super-tax, levied in Great Britain to that of a British subject domiciled in one of the Overseas Dominions;
(2) whether a British subject domiciled in the Irish Free State, but resident for more than six months of the year in Great Britain is, under the terms of the; Order in Council recently laid upon the Table, liable to pay an extra rate of Income Tax or Super-tax on property which he owns in this country or for dividends in companies registered in Great Britain, and on which the Income Tax is collected in Great Britain?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Sir Robert Horne): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to these questions. The recent Order in Council has reference only to the powers of the Irish Provisional Government, and the Income Tax and Super-tax powers which are transferred thereto relate only to the assessment, levying, and collection in Southern Ireland. The basis and measure of liability to those duties for the present remain unaffected, and the position of Southern Irish taxpayers in these respects is still unchanged.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will the position still be unchanged when the Constitution Bill becomes an Act?

Sir R. HORNE: That is a totally different question. I am afraid that my hon. and gallant Friend must wait for the Constitution Bill?

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if those who have already paid the taxes to the Imperial Government will get credit for the payments from the Free State, or will they have to pay twice?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not imagine that any Irishman will pay twice.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand that until the Constitution Bill is passed, and the new Parliament in Ireland is assembled, there is no power in the Irish Free State to impose new taxes?

Sir R. HORNE: All they are doing at the present time is under an Order in Council to collect taxes which are levied by this Parliament?

Colonel NEWMAN: Can the Provisional Government impose new taxes?

Sir R. HORNE: They can after the Constitution has been established, but it is not yet established.

TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

Colonel NEWMAN: 5.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the importance and complexity of the matter it contains, he will take steps to have the Order in Council, dated the 1st April and entitled the Provisional Government (Transfer of Functions) Order, 1922, circulated among Members of this House and made available for the Press and general public?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): Copies of this Order are now available in the Vote Office, for the information of hon. Members.

OUTRAGES.

Viscount CURZON: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the special constables captured at Clones have yet been released; if the murderers of Lieutenant Ginochio have been apprehended; if not, whether any steps are now being taken to catch the assassins; and whether any joint inquiry into this assassination is to be held?
Sir H. GREENWOOD: I understand that the special constables captured at Clones railway station have not yet been released. Presumably their case will now fall to be considered by the two Irish Governments under Clause 10 of the recent Peace Agreement, which provides for the release of political prisoners in cases agreed upon between the signatories to that Agreement. In regard to the latter part of the question, no arrests have yet been made in connection with the murder of Lieutenant Genochio. The question of holding a joint inquiry into the circumstances of this tragedy is still undecided.

Viscount CURZON: When may we expect the joint decision? It is obvious the question cannot be allowed to continue too long. Could the right hon. Gentleman state what is the reason why there is so much delay in coming to any sort of decision whether to accept the offer of the Irish Free State to have an inquiry into the matter or not?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to the first part of the question as to the
release of the special constables, that is a matter now between the Northern and the Southern Governments of Ireland. I expect a decision in respect to the special constables at a very early date. In reference to the last part I regret I cannot give the Noble Lord any further information.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Supposing these special constables are held by De Valera's men and not by Collins' men, what will happen then?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend is, I believe, wrong in basing his supplementary on that presumption. I understand these men are under the control of the Provisional Government.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Then why have not they been released long ago?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is one of the questions which was taken up in the recent conference between the Northern and Southern Governments. I have no doubt those two Governments are now dealing with that particular question. My latest information is that all these special constables are in good health and well treated.

PUBLIC SERVANTS.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government will take steps to embody in an Act of Parliament, to be passed this Session, the various pledges they have given guaranteeing the pensions and compensation payable to public servants in Ireland who may retire or be discharged from their offices?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statements on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Debate on consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill on the 31st March last.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman state plainly are we to have these pledges embodied in an Act of Parliament, or are we not, and does he realise that if they are not so embodied they are no good?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question on the Paper was debated last week.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Might I ask the Chief Secretary is he aware that no answer was given to this specific question in debate, and could not he give me a specific answer now?

Mr. SPEAKER: They gave all the answer that they could, no doubt.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the conditions under which the persons referred to in Article 10 of the Irish Treaty can retire, or are liable to be dischaged by the Irish Free State Government; and whether the British Government will guarantee the salaries and pensions of existing civil servants who elect to serve under the Irish Free State Government, and in so doing have regard to Sections 55 and 56 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The conditions under which the persons referred to in Article 10 of the Treaty can retire or be discharged by the Free State Government is a matter proper to be dealt with in the Free State constitution or in the Act confirming that constitution, and I cannot anticipate what those provisions will be. The compensation which they will be entitled to receive in the event of dismissal or of retirement in consequence of the change of Government will, as the hon. and learned Member is aware, be not less favourable than that accorded in like circumstances by the Act of 1920. In reply to the last part of the question, I can add nothing to the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 19th December last.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me, in reply to a previous question on the same subject, that the very points on which I am inquiring were under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Provisional Government, and are we to understand that these civil servants are to be left to the tender mercies of the Free State Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Baronet is perfectly familiar with the Act of 1920 and the Treaty, and under those two documents, plus the pledge of the Leader of the House that the Imperial Government guaranteed all payments to those persons, I think they are adequately provided for.

Sir J. BUTCHER: This is a very important matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part, whether the conditions of their retirement or discharge will not be dealt with by His Majesty's Government in some way in view of the fact that these questions are not dealt with under the Act?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have done my best to answer the question. I regret the answer is unsatisfactory to the hon. Baronet, but it is an answer, I think, that adequately protects these officials, whose service no one appreciates more than I do, and whose interests he has so often championed.

BRITISH TUG (PIRATICAL SEIZURE).

Sir PARK GOFF: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what precautions were taken to guard the "Upnor," whose cargo was seized off the South Coast of Ireland; under whose orders the "Upnor" proceeded to sea; under what circumstances the ship was captured on the high seas; and whether he can give any information as to where the cargo was conveyed to, if any of it has yet been recovered, and, if so, what amount?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): An inquiry has been ordered by the Admiralty, but the report has not yet been received, and I am, accordingly, not at present in a position to give a full answer. I desire to add, however, that the prompt action of the Commander-in-Chief of the Western Approaches in sending a destroyer and a sloop in pursuit, immediately he knew of the suspicious circumstances attending the sailing of the tug "Warrior," prevented the greater part of the cargo being removed from "Upnor."

Sir P. GOFF: Is it customary, considering the present state of Ireland, for vessels to put to sea with such an important cargo without a proper escort?

Mr. AMERY: Precautions were taken until the "Upnor" had got out of Queenstown harbour.

Sir P. GOFF: Were any precautions taken before she had got out?

POSTAL TRAFFIC SUPERINTENDENTS, DUBLIN.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that
Messrs. Morgan and Allen, traffic superintendents, Dublin, are Englishmen who were officially transferred to Ireland in 1908; and whether, in view of the fact that they do not wish to be transferred to the service of the Government of the Irish Free State, he can make special arrangements to avoid transferring them against their will?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am aware that Messrs. Morgan and Allen are Englishmen. They were transferred to the Post Office from the National Telephone Company in 1912 and were at the time stationed in Ireland. As stated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend of the 29th ultimo, I cannot at present make any definite promise to transfer these officers to Great Britain, but the matter is under consideration.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

Viscount CURZON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information with regard to the atrocities committed on two disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ballyhaunis; whether these two men were both shot on arrival in Ballyhaunis, to arrange for the removal of themselves and families; whether both men were Roman Catholics of long service in the Royal Irish Constabulary; whether he can state what steps are being taken to protect other members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who will be disbanded in Southern Ireland, from similar atrocities; whether he can also give the House any information with reference to the fighting reported to have taken place in the Sperrin Mountains, and whether anything is being done by the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland to deal with the boycott of Northern Ireland.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have been asked to answer this question. I am sure the House will agree that it is of vital importance, and makes necessary a rather lengthy answer. In reply to the first part of the question, I regret that I can give no further information regarding this atrocious crime than that which I gave yesterday in reply to a private notice question by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman), except that I am glad to be able to
inform the House that the wounded constable has been brought to a hospital in Dublin, and I am informed there is a fair chance of his recovery. The reply to the second and third parts is in the affirmative. In reply to the fifth part of the question, I am happy to inform the House that there is no truth in the report that fighting has been taking place in the Sperrin Mountains. In reply to the sixth part of the question, I am making inquiry from the Provisional Government. In reply to the fourth part of the question, every policeman on disbandment is entitled to a free travelling warrant for himself, his wife, his children and dependants from Ireland to any place in the United Kingdom. In addition he receives pay up to the time of disbandment. This would be, approximately, from £16 to £20 for a constable and larger amounts for higher grades. A further cash payment, as an advance for reasonable travelling expenses which is subject to accounting, of one month's pay for single men, of two months' pay for married men with less than three children, and of three months' pay for married men with three or more children, is paid on disbandment. Every man also receives on application a sum of at least £10 further, as an advance on account of pension. As a still further precaution and for the protection of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary on disbandment my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary telegraphed yesterday to General Tudor that he should make plain to every man that he had only to ask for a warrant to this country for himself and his family, and that such a warrant would be at once given to him. Men were to be encouraged to come to this country rather than discouraged until conditions were more settled. General Tudor was further instructed to let us know at once if any difficulty arose in regard to the prompt issue of the warrants, and he was directed that men should only be disbanded in places whence they can, as a matter of fact, get out of Ireland in safety.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: With regard to the constable who, as we are informed by the right hon. Gentleman, is wounded and in hospital in Dublin, in view of the fact that in a similar case quite recently murderers found their way into the hospital and murdered a wounded
constable, is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to give the wounded constable in this case special protection?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot speak from personal knowledge, but I have no doubt General Tudor, the Chief of Police, has taken steps to give adequate protection to this man.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Has the Colonial Secretary made any representations to the Provisional Government in Ireland, with a view to their taking special precautions to guard these men, while they are making arrangements to bring their wives and families over here to England and winding up their affairs in Ireland? What is the use of giving them money if they are to be murdered?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Will any further allowance be made to married men, in the nature of a disturbance allowance, to enable them to bring their furniture over to England, because two months' pay is not sufficient to cover the cost of the removal of a man's furniture from Ireland over here?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Two months' pay for an ordinary constable would at least be approximately £32—for a married man with two children. I should have thought, that was sufficient. For a married man with three or more children it would similarly be approximately £48 at the minimum, and I should have thought that also was sufficient to remove a man's furniture. With reference to the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Ashley) as to notifying the Provisional Government, this was done before the dispersal, both personally, at recent Conferences at the Colonial Office, and by letter, by myself, as well as by the Colonial Secretary, directly to Mr. Collins, Chairman of the Provisional Government. Every possible care has been taken to secure for these men the protection which we all agree, they well deserve.

Viscount CURZON: Were the provisions which the right hon. Gentleman has announced were made for the protection of these two men notified to these two men before they were allowed to go for dispersal, and, if so, how came it that it was possible for them to get into such a position that they were easy targets for the first attack made on them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that these men were warned of the risks they ran in going to the County Mayo. The fact of the matter is that members of the Royal Irish Constabulary are such outstanding brave and gallant men that they will run risks, although every opportunity, as I have said, has been given and is given to them to avoid the risk by leaving Ireland immediately on disbandment.

Mr. WATERSON: Are any steps being taken by the Government to see that something is done for these men on arrival in this country, or will they be thrown on the streets unemployed, and what is the Government going to do to house these families when they come?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps with the police authorities in Ireland to obviate the necessity for these men going back to their homes, and to make arrangements for their families to come over to this country without the husbands having to risk their lives in going to fetch them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: In answer to the last question, that has already been done. A man can have a warrant to his own home free, if he wishes it, in Ireland or he can have a warrant to any part of the United Kingdom. In addition to that, his wife, family, and dependents get warrants to move independently of him, if they so desire, from any place in Ireland to any other place in the United Kingdom or Ireland. In answer to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Waterson), every police authority in Great Britain has already been warned that he may be applied to for guidance by ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. As to the question of housing, the Government cannot make any special arrangements for the housing of these men and women who may come to Great Britain. They will not, to my mind, add to the unemployment question, because all of them have pensions, as set out in the terms of disbandment, now in the Order Office for hon. Members.

Mr. DEVLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state to the House what is the number of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who have expressed any desire to leave the country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot give any numbers. As far as I know, up to the present there has been no great desire to leave Ireland at all.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the lives of any of these disbanded policemen in Ireland will be safe if they do not leave the country, or, at any rate, go to Ulster?

Mr. DEVLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they will not come over to a country which sends representatives of this sort to the House of Commons?

TROOPS ON LEAVE (PROTECTION).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent decision to disband Irish regiments and in view of the disturbed state of Ireland, any steps are taken to safeguard the lives of officers and soldiers who are about to proceed on leave to their homes or elsewhere in that country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): No special military protection can be given to officers and men on leave in Ireland.

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: Does my right hon. Friend advise these men to apply for safe conducts to the Provisional Government?

Sir L. WORTH INGTON-EVANS: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, they are not obliged to go to Ireland, and I am afraid that if they do go to Ireland they must go at their own risk. I cannot provide military protection for men on leave.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

AGENT (STATUS).

Rear-Admiral Sir R. HALL: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to change the status of the Russian agent in this country into that of a diplomatic officer before this House has approved and ratified the agreements, if any, concluded at Genoa?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the statement which I made on Monday last, he will see that I made this point perfectly clear.

FOREIGN INVESTMENTS.

Mr. HASLAM: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain as soon as possible whether the Russian Government is willing to afford every facility to members of an international commission, consisting, say, of representatives of Great Britain, France, the United States, Belgium, and Italy, to be appointed by the Governments of those countries, respectively, with a view of visiting such parts of Russia as may be deemed desirable in order to make arrangements for the security of the investments of foreign capital with the object of developing the resources and industries of Russia and of stimulating international trade?

The PRIME MINISTER: The possibility of arranging conditions which may make trade with Russia possible is one of the subjects for consideration at the Genoa Conference.

LEGAL INEQUALITIES (MEN AND WOMEN).

Sir JAMES GREIG: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the existing inequalities in the civil and criminal law as between men and women, he will consider appointing a Committee, departmental or otherwise, to investigate the matter with a view to legislation to remove such of these inequalities as may be deemed advisable?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Lord Chancellor is considering the appointment of a Committee to inquire into these matters and to report to him on the whole subject.

GENOA CONFERENCE.

Viscount CURZON: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether any special allowances are to be made to or any expenses incurred by the British delegation or staff at Genoa other than those incurred in travelling, and, if so, what are they; if any estimate of the daily expenditure in respect of the British delegation can be given; and whether any persons not belonging to the delegation are to make use of the travelling facilities?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer the Noble Lord to my answer to a similar question put by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 3rd April. The outfit allowance will be £10, and not £15 as I then stated, and will be confined to official messengers employed on the staff of the delegation. No estimate of the daily expenditure falling upon British funds can at present be furnished, but, as has already been stated, it is not anticipated that the charge will be great, as the British delegates and their staff are to be the guests of the Italian Government.

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman give me an answer to the last sentence of the question?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I much regret that that part was overlooked, but I think, speaking off-hand, that the answer would be in the negative.

Viscount CURZON: Would the hon. Gentleman look into that point and give me an answer?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I will, certainly.

BUDGET (DATE OF INTRODUCTION).

Mr. WATERSON: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state the date of the introduction of the Budget?

Sir R.HORNE: I hope to introduce the Budget on Monday, 1st May.

TAXES ON COMMODITIES, GEEMANY.

Mr. WISE: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commodities and articles are taxed in Germany by the Government and States; and what are the respective taxes in 1913 and 1922?

Sir R. HORNE: Owing to the complexity of the information desired by my hon. Friend, I fear it is impossible to give it.

EARL NELSON (PENSION).

Mr. WATERSON: 34.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state
the entire amount paid up to date in the shape of pension to Earl Nelson and his successors under the Statute of George III, c. 146?

Sir R. HORNE: £5,000 a year since the date of the statutory grant after the battle of Trafalgar.

Mr. HOGGE: Why could not this pension now be commuted?

Sir R. HORNE: That is a totally different question.

Mr. WATERSON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reply that was elicited last week, and will he give a reply to the question which I have now put on the Order Paper, as to what is the total amount that has been paid since its inception?

Sir R. HORNE: Surely my hon. Friend is quite competent to make the multiplication by the number of years since the Battle of Trafalgar.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House consider whether this pension cannot now be commuted?

TABLE-WATER DUTIES.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention to renew the tablewater duties, seeing that, owing to the heavy taxation, the output of sweetened beverages was reduced in 1920 by 21,500,000 gallons as compared with 1918, and that, without the table-water duties, the mineral and aerated water trade pays in other taxation £719,220, and that the reduction of output, if continued, will add largely to the unemployment difficulty?

Sir R. HORNE: I am unable to anticipate the Budget statement.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, by means of a circular or otherwise, he will impress upon the several Departments the grave objection felt to the issue of Supplementary Estimates, notifying them that if they wish to spend money on new items they must save corresponding amounts elsewhere?

Sir R. HORNE: I would refer the hon. Member to Treasury circular of the 28th April, 1920, of which I am sending him a copy privately.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even during the last two or three days the Government have started off again with new Supplementary Estimates of several millions for the coming year?

Sir R. HORNE: I am certain that my hon. Friend, with a much longer experience of this House than I have, must know that there are a certain number of Supplementary Estimates which are unavoidable, and it is quite impossible to promise that there shall be no Supplementary Estimates in any particular year.

NATIONAL DEBT (REPAYMENT).

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 37.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of home and foreign debt due for repayment in the new financial year; the rate of interest payable on that debt; and the amount of relief to the Exchequer which he hopes to secure by re-borrowing at current rates of interest?

Sir R. HORNE: I would ask the hon. Member to wait until I can deal with these matters in the Financial Statement for the year.

CURRENCY AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE.

Mr. STEWART: 38.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the British representatives at the Genoa Conference will be able to include within their purview the possibility of utilizing silver to assist the international exchanges in view of the fact that there is not gold enough to meet the world's needs to-day; whether our representatives will confer with the delegations of the other nations present, and, if possible, also with the United States of America, with the object of according more favourable treatment to the white metal, even if they cannot go the length of fixing a ratio between gold and silver; and, if they are unable to consider such a course, have our delegation any scheme in view whereby the rouble can be reconstituted for international trading purposes?

Sir R. HORNE: While I cannot foresee what course the discussions at Genoa on the subject of exchange may take, I have no doubt that all relevant questions, including the possibility of re-introducing a metallic currency (which might well be made of silver) in Eastern Europe, will be fully considered. I hope, however, that the Conference will not embark on the wider subject of a fixed ratio between gold and silver.

Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by a simple arrangement between the United States and this country the price of silver was steadied quite recently for a whole year; and would he not consider whether the question of steadiness, as regards our exports and making forward contracts, is not much more important than the question of the ratio?

Sir R. HORNE: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it would be very much better for trading arrangements if we could get a stable price for silver.

Mr. WISE: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now appoint a committee to reconsider the conclusions of the Cunliffe Committee on currency and foreign exchange?

Sir R. HORNE: It is, I think, obvious that the eve of the Genoa Conference would not be a suitable moment for adopting my hon. Friend's proposal.

MAINTENANCEORDER, ORDER, MANCHESTER

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that William Morrell, 92, Chapel Street, Ancoats (or 107, Redbank), Manchester, a disabled pensioner, suffering from consumption, was recently sentenced to two months' imprisonment by the local magistrates and that, after he had served his sentence, it was discovered that, owing to a clerical error committed by an officer of the court, he had been wrongly convicted; whether, owing to this miscarriage of justice, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the case with a view of expunging the conviction from the records and thereby protecting the man's future; and whether, if he has no power to expunge the conviction from the records, he will take steps to seek such power and to compensate the person who has suffered?

Mr. SHORTT: The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking there was a conviction in this case. It was the case of a man ordered to pay for the maintenance of his wife and children. I have no authority to intervene in regard to it, but I am inquiring into the facts and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another case of a man wrongfully imprisoned was brought to his notice quite recently, and if there is no redress in these cases will he take steps to amend the law?

Mr. DAVIES: If the Home Secretary finds that an error was committed in this case will he see that the record of the conviction is expunged?

Mr. SHORTT: This is not a case of a conviction. For any redress that is required, he must go to the court. The Home Office has no authority in such cases.

POLICE PENSIONS.

Mr. WATERSON: 43.
asked the Home Secretary whether pre-War police pensioners who had their pensions increased by 50 per cent. have now had such reduced to 33½ per cent. above pre-War; and, if so, will he inquire whether any Standing Joint Committees have effected such a reduction under the plea of a reduction in the cost of living?

Mr. SHORTT: No change is being made as to the basis of assessment in the case of Metropolitan Police pensioners. I have no information as to the course which is being adopted by county and borough Police authorities. I may remind my hon. Friend that the amount of any grant is at the discretion of the Police authority, subject to the limits specified in the Pensions (Increase) Act, and I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

WEST INDIA COLONIES (REPORT).

Mr. GIDEON MURRAY: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has yet presented his Report upon his recent official visit to the British West Indian Colonies; and, if so, whether he will arrange to have this Report printed and laid upon the Table of the House at an early date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I hope that my Report will shortly be presented to the Secretary of State. It is proposed to lay it on the Table of the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. MURRAY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea when the earliest possible moment will be?

Mr. WOOD: I hope to have it out of my hands in the course of the next two or three weeks. I understand courtesy demands that it should not be laid on the Table of the House before it has had time to reach the Colonies concerned.

MILK.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether, when considering Amendments to the Milk and Dairies Act of 1915, he will give favourable consideration to the desirability of enabling local authorities to assist in securing improved supplies of milk in their area by means of classification and by having the power to revoke or suspend certificates and of registration of all milk sellers in their area?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): Yes, Sir. Both these proposals are receiving my careful consideration.

Mr. HURD: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will communicate to the House, for the information of the public, the explanation which the milk companies have given in answer to his inquiries as to the reasons why the farmer in the south-western counties is given only 8d. per gallon, delivered at his own cost into London, for milk for which the London consumer is charged 1s. 8d. per gallon?

Major MORRISON-BELL: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give any explanation as to why the price of milk to the producers in the southwestern countries should be only 8d., when the consumer in London is charged 1s. 8d. per gallon; and what services the distributor performs between the London termini and the actual consumer to justify the additional charge?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The explanation
usually given in regard to the difference between the price paid by the consumer and that paid to the producer is that this is the sum required on the average to cover cost of collection from the station in London, retail distribution, and risks involved in dealing with surplus milk. The cost of retail distribution to the consumer includes rent, wages, upkeep of retail plant and vehicles, and profit to the retailer

Mr. HURD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that he, with his special knowledge, has reason to believe that this shilling is not an excessive charge?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No; that is a question I could not possibly answer.

Mr. A. HERBERT: 83.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider the possibilities of legislation on behalf of the farmers who have bought their holdings, relying upon the policy of the Government, and who are now faced with bankruptcy owing to the fall in milk prices?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am prepared to consider any practicable proposals which my hon. Friend may submit to meet the financial difficulties of farmers, but I may point out that the fall in the price of milk is due to causes which have no connection with the change in the agricultural policy of the Government.

Mr. W. SMITH: 84.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the great disparity in the price paid to farmers for milk and the cost to the consumer, he will appoint a Committee of Inquiry to investigate the question of costs and prices and to suggest means by which the interests of the consumers can be adequately safeguarded?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I am considering whether the appointment of a Committee would be likely to lead to any useful result, and am in communication with the principal farmers' organisations on the subject, but I can make no statement at the moment.

SANITARY INSPECTOR, BRIDGNORTH.

Mr. FREDERICK GREEN: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether he
is aware that the Rural District Council of Bridgnorth have recently appointed a sanitary inspector at a salary of £150 per annum, without bonus; and whether, seeing that such a salary is an inadequate one for a statutory officer charged with the carrying out of vital and important duties affecting public health, he will be prepared to make it a condition of giving his sanction to the appointment that adequate remuneration shall be paid to the officer?

Sir A. MOND: I have already sanctioned the appointment referred to. The inspector applied for the appointment with full knowledge of the salary offered, and in present circumstances I cannot require local authorities to pay salaries in excess of what they themselves consider necessary and what enables them to obtain a qualified officer.

ELECTORAL REGISTERS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of preparing the lists and registers of elections annually, in view of the heavy cost of preparing the same?

Mr. SHORTT: I have been asked to reply to this question. I am sending the hon. Member copies of previous replies to questions on this subject, from which it will be seen that the matter is already under consideration.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for sending the reply. Can he say when the consideration will become a conclusion?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I cannot do that.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Has not the matter been under consideration for 16 months?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, but we have not been able to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Will the House be allowed to decide the question by a free vote in the event of an Amendment to the effect suggested being put down to the Representation of the People Bill?

Mr. SHORTT: The House can always decide as it wishes without reference to the Government.

DEATHS FROM STARVATION.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 52.
asked the Minister of Health the number of deaths occasioned by starvation or accelerated by privation that have occurred in the counties of Durham, Yorkshire, and Berkshire, respectively, during the years 1919 to 1921, inclusive?

Sir A. MOND: No deaths from starvation or exposure were reported by the coroners as having occurred in any of these counties in 1919. For 1920 five were reported as having occurred in Durham, one as having occurred in Yorkshire, none in Berkshire. Figures for 1921 are not as yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, having regard to the excessive burden of rates in industrial areas owing to trade depression at the present time, he can see his way to augment the special grant made to necessitous areas in the forthcoming year so that educational services shall not be seriously crippled in such districts?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I regret that I do not see my way to augment this grant.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. MALONE: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that teachers are entitled to a pension on reaching the age of 60 only if they have given at least 30 years' service, he has any figures to show what proportion of the teachers engaged in the elementary schools have qualified for pension during the last few years?

Mr. FISHER: I regret that no figures for this purpose are available, and that it would require a disproportionate amount of labour to extract them.

ECONOMIES.

Mr. MALONE: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, before proceeding to embody in a Bill the proposals of the Geddes Committee regarding education which the Government have adopted, he will consider the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate and to hear the evidence of the teachers and other educationists of repute on the questions of the size of classes, the exclusion of young children from school, the deduction from teachers' salaries for superannuation, and any other matters he may consider necessary?

Mr. FISHER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27th March by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Members for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) and Pontypool (Mr. T. Griffiths).

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE, CHILDREN.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many children were in receipt of maintenance allowances in the year ending 31st March, 1921, in ordinary public elementary schools, in central schools, and in secondary schools, respectively?

Mr. FISHER: I have no materials which would enable mc to state the number of children in ordinary and central public elementary schools who in 1920–21 were in receipt of maintenance allowances granted by local education authorities. The number of pupils in secondary schools who, during the whole or part of that year, were in receipt of such allowances was, approximately, 57,000.

NAVAL OFFICERS (PAY).

Mr. AMMON: 59.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, as stated on page 156 of the Third Report of the Committee on National Expenditure, the number of naval officers receiving £2,000 per annum and upwards, is 46; and, if not, what is the actual number of officers whose emoluments are on this scale, including lodging, provision, fuel, and light, and servant allowance or the value of the equivalents received in kind, but excluding table-money?

Mr. AMERY: The number of naval officers whose emoluments, including
lodging, provision, fuel and light, and servant's allowance, or the value of the equivalents received in kind, amount to £2,000 per annum and upwards is 72. This number includes the President of the Naval Inter-Allied Commission of Control, whose pay and allowances are recoverable from Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 62.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he has received a communication from the Hampshire Automobile Club, with a copy of a resolution expressing their opinion that the incidence of the present tax on motor vehicles is inequitable in several ways, and that in particular it is advisable to adopt a method of taxation based on road user; and whether he will now consider a revision of the present method of taxation?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 13th February.

SPANISH TARIFFS.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to recent changes in Spanish tariffs and to the manner in which they are penalising British trade; whether it is intended at present to enter into any commercial treaty with Spain; and whether, in view of the fact that the 90 days within which modifications of the Spanish tariff may be claimed are rapidly passing, any action is being taken to safeguard the interests of this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: A new customs tariff has recently been put into operation in Spain, and proposals for the conclusion of a commercial treaty have already been submitted to the Spanish Government for their consideration.

GERMAN DYES (IMPORT LICENCES).

Mr. KILEY: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that licences to import special German dyes are withheld on the grounds that such German dyes are available in this country and that such persons requiring licences must purchase these first; and whether he has sanctioned this prohibition?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am aware that licences are not granted for the importation of German dyestuffs when there are in this country stocks of the same dyestuffs available to the applicants; and I see no reason why licences should be granted in such circumstances.

Mr. KILEY: If the user wants that dye, why should he go to anybody else and pay a bigger price than he did before?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: When there are plentiful supplies of those dyes already available in this country there is no reason to encourage a further flood of German dyes which are not necessary.

Major M. WOOD: Is the price charged for these dyes produced in this country greater than the price at which they can be obtained from Germany?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is a discrepancy in price, and the hon. Member is possibly aware that the high price is charged by Germany for those dyes which cannot be produced in this country.

Mr. KILEY: Why should not the manufacturer be able to get his dyes at the cheapest possible price, whether they are made in this country or not?

Sir P.LLOYD-GREAME: Because, as a very distinguished calico printer pointed out in this House when my hon. Friend tried to repeal the Act, the dye industry is a vital industry to the calico printers and this country.

WESTERN COUNTIES SHIPPING COMPANY.

Mr. HURD: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the loss of 2¼ millions sterling of the capital of the Western Counties Shipping Company and to the fact that no accounts have been received
and no shareholders' meeting has been held; whether he proposes to take steps to enforce the law as to the holding of a meeting and the submission of accounts; and, if not, what other measures he pro poses to take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. I am advised that an application to the Court to direct the holding of a general meeting of the company must be made by a shareholder and not by the Board of Trade. In the event of a winding-up order being made by the Court on the petition of a creditor or a shareholder, a full investigation of the company's affairs would be conducted by the Official Receiver.

POSTAL RATES.

Mr. STURROCK: 71.
asked the Postmaster General whether he is now in a position to make a definite statement as to the new postal rates which are under consideration?

Mr. PEASE: My right hon. Friend is not in a position to make a statement. The matter is under the consideration of the Government.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the continued uncertainty as to a decision in this matter is causing very serious unemployment in every branch of the trades affected by the postal rates, and will he bring that to an end by making an announcement?

Mr. PEASE: I realise the importance of the matter, which is in the hands of the Cabinet at the present time.

Mr. WATERSON: May we expect an answer before the Easter Recess?

SHIPPING (REPAIR ABROAD).

Mr. SIMM: 73.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been drawn to the report that, in the event of the dispute in the shipbuilding industry leading to a stoppage, certain vessels now being overhauled in the Tyne will be removed to foreign yards; and if he is taking immediate steps to endeavour to pre-
vent such removal, especially in view of the fact that unemployment heavily afflicts the district concerned?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have not seen the report report referred to, but in any case I am afraid that I have no power to compel repairs to be carried out in British ports. This appears to me to be a matter which must be settled by discussion between all the interests concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION, WEMBLEY.

Mr. MOSLEY: 74.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the fact that large numbers of workmen are unemployed in Wembley and that no relief scheme has been started there, he will give instructions that in allocating workmen for the construction of the British Empire Exhibition at Wembley priority be given to local unemployed workmen?

Dr. MACNAMARA: In submitting men to the contractors for employment at Wembley, the Exchanges will select those applicants who are industrially most suitable, subject to the usual preference for ex-service men. I cannot undertake that residents at Wembley shall have any special priority, but, in the nature of things, they would, presumably, have a better chance of obtaining this employment than residents elsewhere.

Mr. MOSLEY: Why, in the nature of things, would the local men have a better chance?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Because they are handy. It seems a rather sensible suggestion.

Mr. MOSLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that they should have priority?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot do that, but, obviously, being there on the spot, they will probably have a better chance.

RESCUE OF WOMAN (INJURIES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 76.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the case of a man by the name of Thomas Jackson, residing at Edmonton, who burned his right hand very badly in
trying to put out the flames by rolling Miss Elsie Noble in a blanket, who died in the North Middlesex Hospital a few hours after being badly burned, owing to her clothes catching fire from a candle she was carrying when getting coal from a coal cupboard; that at the time the man was receiving unemployment pay, but in consequence of his hand being burned his unemployment pay has been stopped; if he is aware that the National Health Insurance people stated that he was not eligible to recover benefit from them; and if he will take action in the matter?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Mr. Jackson was paid his benefit in full last Thursday and will be paid again in the ordinary course to-day. There has therefore been no interruption in payment. The facts are as follow: When he was questioned at the Exchange with regard to his burnt hand he gave no details beyond saying that he had met with an accident, and unemployment benefit was consequently suspended for the future. The full facts first came to the knowledge of the Exchange from the Press reports and were immediately submitted to the insurance officer, who decided that benefit should continue. The question of sickness benefit is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (CLAIM).

Mr. GILLIS: 78.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the balance of a debt due from the Ministry of Munitions to Messrs. Woodhead Brothers, Leeds, still remains unpaid; and whether he will state the reason of the delay in the settlement of his claim?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hilton Young): A claim was preferred by this firm arising out of a contract with the Ministry of Munitions. Acting under legal advice, the Ministry maintained that there was no claim in law, but the firm was offered, and accepted, a sum of £1,000 ex gratia in final satisfaction of the claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SURPLUS AMMUNITION (BREAKING-UP).

Captain GEE: 79
asked (1) the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Treasury if he is aware that some 8,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition have recently been sold from Woolwich Arsenal to a Birmingham firm to be broken up, and that negotiations are now being carried on with another civilian firm, who desire to purchase some 5,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition for breaking up; whether, seeing that disabled ex-service men, who are capable of carrying out this work, are being discharged from Woolwich Arsenal and other Government factories, this policy can be reconsidered;
(2) the Secretary of State for War whether he will refrain from handing any more ammunition to the Disposal Board for sale and to be broken up, having regard to the fact that this work can be and has been profitably carried out by disabled men at Woolwich and other Government factories;
(3) whether there is stored at Bramley over 400,000 fuzes (various) and millions of rounds of small arms ammunition; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of having part of these removed to Woolwich and other Government factories to be broken up, and so find work for the disabled men now under notice for discharge?

Sir L. W0RTHINGTON-EVANS: The procedure under which surplus ammunition and fuzes are reported to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission must go on, but arrangements will, if possible, be made to continue to give to Woolwich some of the work of breaking down these surplus stores. The difficulty at present is that the work has not hitherto been performed at Woolwich so economically as elsewhere. With regard to Bramley, the 400,000 fuzes referred to have been already sold by the Commission to the United Steel Company who, as I explained in my reply of the 4th instant, have obtained permission to break them down on the spot. It is obvious that this contract, and similarly the contracts for the ammunition referred to in question No. 79, cannot be cancelled.

Captain GEE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these men, who performed their work in a proper manner, are being discharged, and that the work is now being carried on by civilian firms employing girl labour?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot admit the statements of fact of my hon. and gallant Friend. He may be perfectly sure that, as far as it can be economically done, and as far as possible, Woolwich will have a fair chance.

EDUCATION CORPS OFFICERS.

Captain GEE: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for War if, in the interests of efficiency and economy, he will consider the advisability of abolishing the posts of G.S.O., 3 (E)?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The necessity for retaining an officer of the Army Educational Corps at Command Headquarters has been most carefully considered and it has been decided that such a post is essential for the present. It will, however, no longer carry a staff grading.

WAR GRAVES (HEADSTONES).

Mr. HANCOCK: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the great difficulty of masons in the, Northern and Midland parts of the Kingdom in tendering for the erection of headstones in French and Belgian cemeteries owing to the stipulation that it must be Portland stone; and, seeing that there is stone of excellent quality in other parts of the Kingdom and that the interred soldiers came from all parts of the Kingdom, will he give all contractors an equal chance by withdrawing the stipulation?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. In inviting tenders for headstones no stipulation is made by the Commission that the stone must only be Portland stone. The Commission is at all times prepared to consider tenders for such other stone as the contractor may choose to tender for, and is guided in its selection solely by considerations of quality and price. As a matter of fact, other British stone has been used.

HOP CONTROLLER.

Mr. KILEY: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture who is the Hop Controller; what are the terms of his engagement and what salary he receives; and whether
there is any appeal from the decisions he gives when applications for licences to import hops are refused by him?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Hop Controller is Mr. G. Foster Clark, J.P. He is charged with the administration of the hop control which has been sanctioned by Parliament in the Ministry of Food (Continuance) Act, 1920, and he is empowered to make such Regulations as may be necessary to give effect to the control. Mr. Clark receives no salary for his services. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative. I may, however, take this opportunity of stating that I have received from representatives of all the interests concerned expressions of the high esteem in which Mr. Clark is held for the efficient and considerate manner in which he has discharged his onerous duties.

Mr. KILEY: Do we understand that this control entails no cost?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It entails no cost whatever to the public purse.

Mr. KILEY: Only to the consumer?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Only to the trade interests concerned.

Mr. KILEY: The consumer has no voice in the matter at all?

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTES.

Viscount WOLMER: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons why the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes have advanced £14,000 on mortgage to the Schools and Services Supplies, Limited; whether he is aware that the Schools and Services Supplies, Limited, is a co-operative society of schoolmasters, with no connection with the services; that its directors are all civilians; that its members and clientèle are almost exclusively schoolmasters; and that it exists purely for its own benefit; and whether it is the intention of the Government that the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes should use money handed over by the Expeditionary Force canteens to finance private undertakings of this nature?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As I informed my Noble Friend on the 7th March last, the so-called advance is, in fact, an unpaid balance of purchase money for a warehouse which has been sold, by the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes to the purchaser in question, to greater advantage by reason of the fact that payment has been taken in instalments.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS (PASSAGES).

Sir C. YATE: 90.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has obtained a reply from the Government of India to his communication regarding the possibility of alleviating the burden imposed on Government officials in India by the present cost of passages; and if he can state what steps are to be taken in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I have not yet had a reply from the Government of India. Until it has been received, it is not possible to say what steps, if any, will be taken in the matter.

ARMY OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Sir C. YATE: 91.
asked the Under Secretary of State for India if he has received the views of the Government of India on the question of the adjustment of pay and pensions of those officers of the Indian Army who were retained in the Army on account of the War beyond the date on which they became due to be placed on the retired list; and whether he can now make a statement on the subject?

Earl WINTERTON: I have not yet received the views of the Government of India on this question. A reminder is being sent to them.

Sir C. YATE: Is the Noble Lord aware that two years have passed since the Royal Warrant was issued, and will he try to accelerate a decision?

Earl WINTERTON: I am fully aware of the facts, and, as I have said, a reminder is being sent to the Government of India, asking them to send an answer.

RATES(LIMITATION).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to introduce a measure similar in principle to the Rent Restrictions Act in respect of rates throughout the country; whether he will include in such measure provision that for a defined period rates are not to exceed a given figure; and whether such measure would be likely, and thus help, to restrain extravagance in local government?

Sir A. MOND: I have been asked to reply. I do not think it would be practicable to attempt a limitation of the rates by general legislation. It is the duty of every local authority to take such measures as are possible for limiting or reducing their expenditure, and it is by this means that the object of my hon. and gallant Friend can best be attained.

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY: Will the Government undertake not to pass any more legislation?

Sir A. MOND: I cannot answer that question.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT, 1919.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he will state the total estimated cost of the administration of the Electricity Commissioners' Department for the year ending 31st March, 1922; and whether he will consider the advisability of repealing Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, as the expense of the Electricity Commissioners levied on the undertakers under this Section is a direct tax on the electricity supply industry?

Mr. NEAL: The cost for the year 1921–22 was approximately £44,000. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. GREENWOOD: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether a majority of the electricity supply undertakings in Lancashire have objected to setting up a joint electricity authority under the 1919 Act and have substituted a scheme for an advisory board only?

Mr. NEAL: If my hon. Friend's question refers to the whole of Lancashire the answer is in the negative. In the West Lancashire district a Joint Electricity Authority is to be formed under a scheme submitted by the authorised undertakers. In Mid-Lancashire an inquiry has not yet been held, but alternative schemes have been submitted, one for the setting up of an Advisory Board and the other for constituting a Joint Electricity Authority. In South-East Lancashire proposals have been submitted by the undertakers to the Commissioners for the setting up of an Advisory Board, and these proposals are under consideration.

Mr. WADDINGTON: In view of the importance of the Electricity Bill which has just passed the other House, and is shortly coming to this House, will the hon. Gentleman see that the report of the South-East Lancashire inquiry, issued by the Commissioners to the various authorities, is published for the benefit of Members of this House?

Mr. NEAL: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. GREENWOOD: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he will consider the advisability of amending Section 19 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, so as to provide that the transitory powers of the Electricity Commissioners will cease where an advisory board scheme instead of a joint electricity authority has been set up in any electricity district?

Mr. NEAL: I am advised that the powers mentioned may be of assistance to an Advisory Board, and I am therefore unable to recommend an alteration in the law in the sense indicated in the question.

MINES, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. S. WALSH: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that in the Nos. 1 and 2 pits, Parr, St. Helens, Lancashire, belonging to the Haydock Collieries, Limited, a change in the method of work at the coal faces has recently been introduced, involving the use of riddles and forks, resulting in a great increase in the amount of coal dust made, thereby creating an added danger to the underground workmen;
whether he is aware that the Yard Mine and the Raven Head Main Delph in the aforesaid pits are dry and dusty mines, and that after a recent inspection under Section 16 of the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1911, the workmen inspectors reported that all along the coal faces there was an accumulation of slack; that day wagemen were filling the chocks with slack; and that owing to its combustible nature serious complications might result if a roof subsidence should take place, slack in many places being scattered along the roadways and the main haulage roads being dry and dusty; and having regard to the highly explosive character of coal dust, as established by scientific experiments during the last 30 years, if he will state what action his Department proposes to take?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The hon. Member gave me notice of the question last night, and I am obliged to him for calling my attention to the matter. I have been trying all this morning to get into telephonic communication with the divisional inspector, but without success. I hope to do so in the course of to-day, and I will communicate to the hon. Gentleman at the earliest possible moment any information I may receive.

Mr. WALSH: In view of the very serious character of the reports, I beg to give notice that I shall call the attention of the House to this matter on the Motion for Adjournment on Monday next.

NEAE EAST.

Sir J. D. REES: I beg leave to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether he has received any report, or whether his attention has been called to any report, to the effect that the Turkish village of Karatepe, near Aidin, was on 14th February surrounded by a Greek force, partly in and partly without uniform, who are alleged to have collected the inhabitants, including men, women, and children, in a mosque, upon which they are alleged to have opened fire, and to which they are alleged to have set fire, and to have looted the village, to which they are also alleged to have set fire, so that only 14 or 15 men and women are
alleged to have escaped with their lives out of a population believed to have been not less than 400; and whether adequate steps have been taken at the recent Paris Conference or will be taken to ensure the protection of Turks in this region and other regions in the Near East and to put an end to these horrible massacres?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have received no notice from my hon. Friend of this question. I will ask him to put it down for Monday.

Sir J. D. REES: I regret that notice was not received by the hon. Gentleman I will put down the question for Monday.

Mr. DEVLIN: Timely notice.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (DISBANDMENT).

Viscount CURZON: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the failure of the Government to provide adequate facilities for the protection and removal of disbanded members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and their families to England."

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the Noble Lord must submit a more definite Motion than that, after the statement made by the Government to-day.

Viscount CURZON: May I add to my Motion the words "in view of the disgraceful murder of two ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in Ireland reported yesterday"?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the point. We have just been told that fresh instructions were given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies yesterday, and the Noble Lord should have brought forward a Motion to indicate some quite definite failure on the part of the Government. I could not accept the Motion he has put forward.

Mr. GWYNNE: On a point of Order. May I point out that although the Chief Secretary said that facilities had been given, he indicated no way by which these men could get accommodation when they came here?

Sir J. BUTCHER: On a point of Order. Upon the question of whether this is a definite Motion, we have had a statement that steps have been either contemplated or taken to give protection. These steps have proved entirely inadequate. These murders have been going on for some time, and now they culminate in these things which came to our notice yesterday, and my Noble Friend desires to call the attention of the House to this definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, that the Government have failed to give protection to these disbanded Royal Irish Constabulary men up to the present moment, and I venture respectfully to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a definite matter, because of the failure to give protection, that it is urgent, because these men are being murdered, and that it is of public importance, for the honour of our country and the protection of our subjects.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member, I think, forgets that since the passage of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill we have passed the responsibility for order in the Southern part of Ireland to the Provisional Government.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will receive a deputation this afternoon to discuss this matter, if we do not get the adjournment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I should have been more flattered by the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he had put it before he had tried to get the Adjournment.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: What other course could he take?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, I shall be glad to see my hon. and gallant Friend on such a subject.

Mr. DEVLIN: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before he sees the deputation, he will consider what has been said by the Chief Secretary, that there is no desire on the part of these men to come over to this country?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not what I said. There is a desire on the part of some, but I have no knowledge of any great desire on the part of the whole force to leave Ireland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir D. MACLEAN: May I ask the Leader of the House what is the business for next week?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On Monday, we propose to put down Supply, Ministry of Labour Vote. That will be an Allotted day.
On Tuesday, we also propose to take Supply, but that will not be an Allotted day. We will put down the Office of Works Vote, but the Government Business ceases at 8.15, for a private Member's Motion.
On Wednesday, we propose that the House—I believe this will be for the general convenience of the House— should meet at 11 o'clock, and we will take the Motion for the Adjournment for the Easter Recess.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman said there was private business down for Tuesday evening. Is there not also a private Bill on Monday evening at 8.15?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say there was private business, but that there was a private Member's Motion down for Tuesday evening, and that we could not therefore make it an Allotted Supply day, but we shall give all that part of Tuesday which belongs to the Government, up to

8.15, for Supply, in spite of the fact that it will not count as an Allotted day. I think there is a Railway Bill put down for Monday evening.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Does that not really involve the fact that only a very few hours on Monday afternoon can be allotted to the Ministry of Labour Vote?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no control over the times and seasons at which Private Bills are put down. That is wholly beyond the control of the Government, and often very inconvenient.

Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Irish Indemnity Bill will be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I cannot say that, but there will not be any more legislation, after this week, until after the Easter Recess.

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 78.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Butcher, Sir John George
Forrest, Walter


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Casey, T. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Gardiner, James


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gardner, Ernest


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gee, Captain Robert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Barker, Major Robert H.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Glyn, Major Ralph


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Colfox, Major Win. Phillips
Goff, Sir R. Park


Barnston, Major Harry
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Grant, James Augustus


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greig, Colonel Sir James William


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Curzon, Captain viscount
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Blair, Sir Reginald
Doyle, N. G rattan
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Edge, Captain Sir William
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W.D'by)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Ednam, Viscount
Hambro, Angus Vaidemar


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Breese, Major Charles E.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Harris, Sir Henry Percy


Brittain, Sir Harry
Evans, Ernest
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)


Brown, Major D. C.
Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bruton, Sir James
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Higham, Charles Frederick


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hinds, John


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Hopkins, John W. W.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Seddon, J. A.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hurd, Percy A.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Simm, M. T.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Nail, Major Joseph
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Jameson, John Gordon
Neal, Arthur
Stanton, Charles Butt


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Johnstone, Joseph
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Stewart, Gershom


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Nicholson, Brig-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sturrock, J. Leng


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sugden, W. H.


Kidd, James
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sutherland, Sir William


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Taylor, J.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Parker, James
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pearce, Sir William
Waddington, R.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Wallace, J.


Lorden, John William
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Waring, Major Walter


Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Pratt, John William
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Ciaud


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Ramsden, G. T.
Winterton, Earl


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Wise, Frederick


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.
Wolmer, Viscount


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Macquisten, F. A.
Reid, D. D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Magnus, Sir Philip
Renwick, Sir George
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Martin, A. E.
Rodger, A. K.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Matthews, David
Roundell, Colonel R. F.



Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Molson, Major John Eisdale
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
McCurdy.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)




NOES.



Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Halls, Walter
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Ammon, Charles George
Hancock, John George
Rendall, Atheistan


Banton, George
Hartshorn, Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Robertson, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rose, Frank H.


Bromfield, William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Sexton, James


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Spencer, George A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Sutton, John Edward


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kiley, James Daniel
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Devlin, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Finney, Samuel
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Foot, Isaac
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Galbraith, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Gillis, William
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Mills, John Edmund
Wintringham, Margaret


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas



Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hallas, Eldred
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Hogge and Mr. W. Smith.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NO. 2) BILL,

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

Reported, with an Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Staffordshire Asylums Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to

Marriages Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for extending the limits of supply of the Colne Valley Water Company; for authorising the company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; for increasing the charges of the company; and for other purposes." [Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of Doncaster to provide and run omnibuses within and outside the borough; to confer upon the Corporation further powers with reference to their water and electricity undertakings; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Halifax to construct additional waterworks; and for other purposes." [Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Colne Valley Water Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Halifax Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — EAST INDIA LOANS (RAILWAYS AND IRRIGATION) BILL,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 12 (3) of principal Act.)

The proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section twelve of the principal Act (which provides that such sum as the Treasury may direct, not exceeding one-tenth of the receipts of the Unemployment Fund, shall be applied as an Appropriation-in-Aid of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose of the salaries, remuneration, and expenses therein mentioned) shall have effect as though "one-eighth" was substituted for "one-tenth."—[Dr. Macnamara.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of LABOUR {Dr. Macnamara): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Since the first Insurance Act of 1911 a sum not exceeding 10 per cent. has been charged against the Fund for administration. In this Bill, as it went upstairs, we proposed to make that sum not exceeding 12½ per cent. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) objected to the change, and, indeed, thought that a smaller sum rather than a larger sum should be charged against the Fund for administration, but his only course was to move the objection of the Clause, which would leave things exactly as they are at present. He did that, and the Committee agreed with him to the extent of 20 votes to 12, thereby rejecting the Clause. In moving this new Clause, I am asking the House to restore the Bill to the position in which it was before it went to the Committee. I am asking leave to alter "not exceeding 10 per cent." charged on the fund for administration to "not exceeding 12½ per cent." Unfortunately, I was away during the discussion in Committee on the Amendment for rejection. I was, in fact, called away to an urgent conference on a very grave industrial
dispute. My hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Major Baird) made a most admirable defence and explanation of the justification for the 12½ per cent., but I have read the Debate, naturally, with very close interest, and it is quite clear to me that there was very considerable confusion of thought and no less misunderstanding as to what my purpose was, though let me say at once that is no manner of means the fault of my hon. and gallant Friend who for the moment was in charge of the Bill.
It is quite clear that my hon. Friends who voted for the rejection of the Clause thought that increasing the charge on the fund for administration from a sum not exceeding 10 per cent. to a sum not exceeding 12½ per cent. would make more money available for administration and therefore make for extravagance in administration. They thought that it would have the effect of decreasing the benefits to the beneficiaries under the scheme, and some said that, while salaries have fallen and bonuses are being reduced in accordance with the fall in the cost of living figure, so far from a larger percentage being taken for administration, we really ought to be asking for less. I think I have summarised in these few sentences the views of my hon. Friends who upstairs thought it expedient to support the rejection of the Clause. It was suggested that 12½ per cent. would make more money available for administration, and, therefore, give an opportunity for more extravagant administration. The increase to 12½ per cent. will not in any way increase or decrease the money spent on administration. It will only affect the proportion of the cost of administration falling on the fund on the one hand, and on the Treasury on the other. As to the second misconception, that it would have a prejudicial effect upon the payments, or the periods during which they might be payable, that, again, is entirely wrong. The Bill provides for the benefits to be paid, and they are not affected; full provision is made for them in the finance of the Bill, as well as for this appropriation of 12½ per cent. Therefore, the benefits cannot in any way be affected.
The third point is, of course, a very important point, because of the desire I for proper, economical expenditure of
public money. It is said, "The cost of living is falling; salaries and bonuses are falling. How is it you are asking for more and not less." I am not asking for more, but only for a new adjustment. The suggestion that this would make for increased cost of administration is really not borne out by recent experience. The rate of administration charges has very greatly fallen. For instance, from about a rate of £620,000 a month in July, 1921, I have managed to get it down to about £500,000 a month in March, 1922. The staff in that period has been reduced from 21,000 persons to 15,000 persons, and, if human effort can achieve it, I shall certainly continue to reduce administration to the minimum, consistent with the prompt and effective carrying out of the purposes for which this machinery is devised. The fact is this. The Appropriation-in-Aid, of 10 per cent., has never covered the full cost of administration. In fact, the actual percentage of administration charges under the Act of 1911 has never been less than 14 per cent., and year by year, from the very beginning, the Vote of Parliament for the Ministry of Labour has always contained an amount of money which has, in fact, gone to cover the administration charges under this fund which went beyond 10 per cent. What I am trying to do is to straighten out this finance, get it on a business-like footing, and present my account to Parliament, the Exchequer and Audit Department, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General in a self-contained and businesslike way, instead of having what has always been, in effect, a concealed subsidy over and above the charges which Parliament has agreed shall fall upon the fund, by way of an addition from the Treasury, for the cost of administration beyond the 10 per cent. provided by the fund.
That is the purpose of this Clause, and it is entirely different from the misconceptions which arose in Committee. Surely I am on a sound basis when I say we really want to get this straightened out. The Fund must be economically administered, but we want to see that the charges against it are borne by it. It is penalising nobody. It is no good putting in an Act that you can charge against this Fund 10 per cent, for administration charges, when, as a matter
of fact, it is 14 per cent., and the 4 per cent, has to be obtained in another way. That really is not business. I should have thought I should have had the support of all those who want a sound financial policy. If this Clause be not reinserted in the Bill, this is what will happen. In the year 1922–23, upon which we have just entered, something like £750,000 will be necessary above the 10 per cent. to cover the direct charges of administration which ought to fall upon the Fund. That £750,000 will be a new subsidy—if you like, a concealed, or half-concealed subsidy—from the Treasury. That is not business. I must draw the administration charges for this Bill from the proper quarter, and present my account in the right way. Let me say to those hon. Members who thought this was an endeavour—and I gather my hon. Friend still thinks it is—to throw on the Fund an increased charge for administration, to the prejudice of those who draw benefits, that an Appropriation-in-Aid of not more than 12½ per cent. was allowed for by the actuary as part of the finance of the Bill, and the benefits are based upon that. Therefore, how can it be said I am doing anything in prejudice of the benefits?
It seems to have been assumed upstairs in Committee that this proposal was inserted with the intention of indulging in an orgy of extravagance. I have read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) with something approaching amazement. He appeared to think that I want this in order to launch out into all sorts of bloated salaries. I think he said it was a piece of gross impertinence for us to make this proposal. To the ordinary machinery of unemployment I have had super-added in the last six months the machinery of the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Act. I am working at the moment with a permanent staff which is based upon 3 per cent. of unemployment, whereas I am faced with 15 per cent. of unemployment; and, further, in the year 1921, the Exchanges had to examine, check and make 90,000,000 payments under the machine which I am now endeavouring to run. Yet in face of that, it is suggested that, in asking for not more than 12½ per cent., I am being more extravagant than in the past, when, without these heavy charges, there was an administration charge against the fund of at least
14 per cent. I do think the charge that we are endeavouring to get more money to squander is, under the circumstances, grotesque. I am not adding a farthing to the administration expenditure. But I cannot go year by year, as has been the case in the past, and ask for an additional subsidy, which I have called a half-concealed subsidy.
Let those who think a sum of not more than 12½ per cent. for administration charges extravagant compare the experience of commercial firms in insurance. I recognise that they have to get new business, for which they have to pay, and they have charges for commission, but I have made a close examination of their accounts, making due allowance for differentiation, and I think anyone who does that will agree with me that we are not extravagant in the administration of this vast and greatly multiplied work which we have now upon our shoulders. The Clause is simply an endeavour to put the charge properly against this Fund, and not put a part of it on the Fund and a part of it on the Treasury, which has always been done in the past. It is our endeavour that national finance should be free from confusion and ambiguity, and those who desire that will support me in moving the re-insertion of this Clause. I simply ask that there shall be no charge against the Treasury which is by way of being an additional subvention in aid of our insurance scheme, not so declared to Parliament. In the interest of making this scheme self-supporting, wisely and properly administered, and putting it fully before Parliament and the Exchequer and Audit Department as a business-like proposition, I must press for the re-insertion of the Clause.

Mr. ROSE: Upstairs in Committee my right hon. Friend said that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) was disingenuous. I suppose that was all right upstairs in a mere Committee, but if anyone were to suggest disingenuousness in this House, he would probably be called to order, and, perhaps, properly so. Therefore I abstain. Although I thought I had outgrown the possibility of being astonished at anything, even from the right hon. Gentleman, I must say I was very much astonished at the statement he has just made. It has been my lot to examine, and it will
be my duty—not altogether self-imposed— of examining much more closely when the time comes, the Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman has presented. What I want to know just now is this. Has this new arrangement been based on the assumption that the House was going to pass this Bill, or has it been based upon status quo? Although I am not going to examine these Estimates meticulously at this juncture, I do propose to offer one or two general observations. I cannot avoid these references, because they are rather apposite to the particular subject we are discussing now. There is a statement on page 39 of the Estimates as to the total cost of administration—£4,610,875. But the total cost of administration is this sum, with the addition of £1,543,700 (see page 40), purely administrating charges. Note also Sub-head J in the Estimates where there is a figure of £220,000. This makes a total for administrative charges of £6,344,000. I want to know whether this Estimate is based on the status quo of 10 per cent. or whether it is based on some impertinent assumption that this Bill is going to be passed by this House without any sort of consideration, because it seems to me to open up a very much larger, wider, and more important question than this temporary Unemployment Bill. It is this—a question of urgent and greater public importance—are the Estimates which have to be presented to this House to be based upon the assumption that the House is going to pass some Bill which provides for certain amounts, or are these Estimates based upon what the law already provides and authorises to-day. This extra million pounds is what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take from the fund—

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. ROSE: I beg your pardon. Let us examine it a little more closely. The total is £6,344,600. The sum of £3,839,000 is taken from the fund. Does that mean 12½ per cent. on the contributions of 12 million members, or does it mean what the law authorises the Minister to take— because this is not an Act yet; it is only a Bill? If it is 10 per cent. it means that £38,000,000 is the sum total of the contributions, and 12½ per cent. on the £38,000,000 is something over. [An HON. MEMBER: "Give it roughly."] Well, in round figures, the Minister is going to take from the fund four millions odd
instead of about three millions odd, just about a million more. I would like the Minister to make it plain as to whether the estimate of £3,800,000 from the fund is based on the 10 per cent.?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I can answer that at once.

Mr. ROSE: Is it?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. I cannot alter it.

Mr. ROSE: That clears up that point. The right hon. Gentleman has no authority to take more than 10 per cent. until he gets this Bill.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear!

Mr. ROSE: When the right hon. Gentleman gets this Bill, is he going to recast his estimate, which will be put wrong by the very fact of the passage of this Bill? Is he still going to present his estimate upon which the Estimates Committee have already spent two or three weeks' examination? What I have to protest against more than any other thing is this awful slipshod accountancy, the absolutely frightful and wanton way in which Estimates are presented to this House. It is proposed to take a million out of the Fund and so relieve the State of that million. What does that really mean? Is it not a sort of subterfuge to encourage extravagant expenditure upon more officialism? The right hon. Gentleman talks about having reduced the number of his staff—

Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear.

Mr. ROSE: Yes, but at which end?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Both ends.

Mr. ROSE: Is it not a fact that most of the reduction has been in connection with very little people with a couple of pounds a week or thereabouts; charwomen, messengers, junior clerks, and typists? There is hardly a case in which the hierarchy of the Department has been touched in any way, and this is the policy, we understand, which has to run through the whole of the Estimates next year, and it is one of the things which we will protest against when the time comes much more forcibly than I am doing now. We are going to oppose, so far as we possibly can, the re-insertion of this
Clause into the Bill. We believe it to be unnecessary. If you put it in the whole of these Estimates stand null and void, because they are inaccurate.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No!

Mr. ROSE: On the Minister's own showing, if we pass this Bill based on a 10 per cent. contribution from the fund, we are passing a Bill which will enable him to take some other sum, larger or smaller—

Dr. MACNAMARA: I can explain that!

Mr. ROSE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will. We think it right and proper to make this protest now. We were under no misapprehension at all in Committee when we pleaded for throwing out this Clause. We are going to fight to keep this proposed Clause out altogether. In this case we want to invite the co-operation of our economist friends. This is something which is to be taken from the fund. This 12½ per cent. is going to standardise the future, and from a fund contributed by workmen and their employers there is going to be taken an ever-increasing percentage of the funds to which the employers as well as the workmen contribute. If there is to be any balancing of this fund on the basis of 10 per cent. and the State is going to make itself responsible for it, we ought to be informed. If so, what is the position? Our people and their employers contribute £38,000,000 in this coming year. The State contributes £9,000,000, and for that contribution the State arrogates to itself the right to set up any sort of administration that it likes without consultation in any shape or form with the members of what is really a huge benefit-paying union. All that seems to us to be wrong. It seems to us the contributions you are taking from the fund should be employed to cover the whole of your expenditure. What would happen—think for a moment!—if by some miracle trade were to increase and be better during the forthcoming year? What would inevitably happen? You have been taking 12½ per cent. of this fund—

Dr. MACNAMARA: "Not more than"—

Mr. ROSE: We know what "no more than" means when it gets into a Gov-
ernment Department. It means "not less than." We have ample precedent for that. It means this, that as the fund increases there are more contributors and less obligations upon the fund; it means that they are taking an ever-increasing sum for administration which will absolutely relieve, or should even now, relieve the State from any further expenditure. We want to enter this protest against the increasing audacity of elected persons, against the arrogating by this Department, this Whitehall monstrosity, of all sorts of authority which it was never the intention of Parliament or the people to invest it with. It is an extravagant Department, exceedingly wasteful; it is overstaffed and underworked. One end of it is the very much overpaid, and the other end that does the work rather, I am afraid, underpaid. We intend to resist the inclusion or the re-insertion of this Clause, and are doing it in what we believe to be the highest public interest.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I supported upstairs my hon. Friends who voted against the Government on this Clause. In view of the fact that this Measure is a temporary one and as by-and-by the consolidation of these Unemployment Insurance Acts will have to be sought and a permanent Measure introduced into the House and placed upon the Statute Book. I feel with regard to this scheme of the Minister who asks for 12½ per cent. instead of 10 per cent., which he is only allowed to take at present for the cost of administration, that he ought not to do so. The Treasury I understand has dealt with this matter, but they have not been always right in the past. We have been told that in connection with the funds contributed by the workmen and by the State that these funds have not been sufficient even to meet the benefits given under this Bill. Claims have been put forward to increase the benefits, but it appears to me to be an extraordinary thing that the fund being in the condition in which it is—three-quarters of the fund has been contributed by the employers and workmen—looking to the state of the funds, and considering how insufficient they are to meet the obligations cast upon them, that the Minister should make this further raid upon them. I think the Minister would be well advised not to press this
Clause, in view of what happened upstairs, more particularly as this is a temporary Bill to meet an emergency. Last year the Minister under-estimated his obligations with regard to unemployment insurance. We have, perhaps, got to the high-water mark of unemployment, and if matters improve and unemployment decreases, and a larger number of people have contributed to the fund, then the amount produced by the 12½ per cent. which the Minister wishes to take for administrative expenses will be largely increased.
What I think the Minister ought to do is this: he ought to be content with 10 per cent., for if you increase it to 12 per cent. you are putting a premium on extravagance. I am sure of this, or perhaps I had better say that I am not satisfied that the cost of administration in connection with unemployment insurance schemes have not been too high. The Minister is cutting down his staffs, and his costs, and some of us feel that he might go still further, perhaps very much further, and that the whole aim of the Minister should be towards economy of administration. I think one inducement in his Department to exercise economy and not to indulge in extravagance would be for the sum allowed for the cost of administration to be limited; that they should only be allowed to raise 10 and not 12½ and the matter should be under the eye of the Treasury. I think the Minister should seek to remain satisfied with the 10 per cent. allowed him from those contributing to the fund, and not desire to raise the amount to 12½ per cent. I do not think we should upset the decision of the Committee upstairs, which had all the facts before it, and which rejected this claim for 12 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. as in the past. When extra money is required in other directions we are told by the Minister that the Bill must be kept within the bounds provided under the scheme, but when additional remuneration is required for the purpose of administration there is no difficulty about it at all.
In any case, there is going to be a charge on the Treasury. In view of the present emergency in which the Minister finds himself, and the fact that he is going to introduce the Bill next Session, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be content with his present allowance for
administration, and waive the question of an increased amount until he introduces the permanent Measure. The funds should bear the cost of administration. The contributions are made by the State, the employers, and the workmen, and it is only reasonable that the cost of administration should be charged to the fund and no balance should fall upon the Treasury at all. In present conditions, and in view of the fact that the Minister is making strenuous efforts to assist unemployed workmen and their families to get through this temporary time of depression, the right hon. Gentleman should not make this additional charge upon the fund. It is largely for these reasons that the Committee upstairs, when dealing with this part of the scheme, refused, by 20 votes to 12, these additional powers to charge 12½ per cent. I invite the House not to readily agree to the restoration of the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman now seeks to reimpose.

Colonel PENRY WILLIAMS: I do not regard this increase of 2½ per cent. as being at all necessary. Not long ago we had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman in which he told us that a very substantial saving had been made in the administrative expenses of the fund. I think he told us that £1,000,000 per annum had been saved in this way. The Minister is now attempting to take too great powers for administrative expenses. He has an income of about £40,000,000 a year, but he is incurring a debt equal to a further contribution of £20,000,000 a year, making a total income of £60,000,000 a year. If the right hon. Gentleman takes 12½ per cent. of that amount, then he is taking £7,500,000 a year for expenses. The Minister may argue that the money is not immediately available, but it has to be paid back by contributions, and that money will flow into the Treasury, and those funds will be available for administrative expenses. You have for the next few years an ample margin in 10 per cent. for expenses. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we misunderstood the purport of this Clause when it was before the Committee, but we did not do anything of the sort. If the right hon. Gentleman takes £1,500,000 from this fund, it follows that there will be that amount lees in the fund.

Dr. MACNAMARA: £1,000,000.

Colonel WILLIAMS: The contributors are the workmen and the State. Now you have the State contributing a certain amount towards the expenses of administration. If you relieve the State in regard to the administrative portion of the expenses and throw it on to the fund, then the State will not be paying its fair share. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to justify his refusal of the extra 1s. or 6d. per child while he is asking us to vote £1,500,000 for administration expenses. The thing will not hold water at all. I am sorry there are not more hon. Members present to hear this discussion, because I am sure they would agree that 10 per cent, is ample, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to cut his coat according to his cloth, and bring down his expenses. This is the second attempt that has been made to increase the administration expenses. The Health Insurance Acts put very heavy charges on administration expenses, I know the Minister of Labour is not responsible for that, but he has taken a bad leaf out of his colleague's book. For these reasons I hope the House will vote against this new Clause.

Mr. HAYDAY: I desire, first of all, to rebut the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that any deficiency which has to be made up in administrative charges over and above that realised by the 10 per cent. under the present Act is a concealed subsidy. When I called attention to this statement, the right hon. Gentleman said that perhaps it was the wrong word to use. Under the existing Acts, and all the Acts passed dealing with this subject except the Unemployed Workers' Dependants (Temporary Provision) Act, it was clearly decided by the House of Commons that up to 10 per cent. should be taken from the funds, but where the cost of administration exceeded 10 per cent. that was to be a Treasury charge and a Government charge. That was clear and definite and it is not a new idea. This is the third or fourth Unemployment Act we have had, and each one of them except the Dependants Act, which will be merged into this Act, 10 per cent. was the fixed figure, and if the administrative charges turned out to be more it was clearly stated that the State ought to provide them.
Why was the 10 per cent. figure mentioned? I can only imagine that it was
because the State as a third partner to a joint undertaking was not paying anything like a third share, and that anything over 10 per cent. from the funds should be a charge to make good the deficiency of the State's share. It has been said that there was some doubt upon this point in the Committee, but at any rate those doubts were never present in the minds of those who voted for the 10 per cent, as against 12½ per cent. I suggest that it is a very serious thing to upset the decision of a Committee, otherwise you will very rarely get Members of the House prepared to sit for whole days discussing earnestly matters that are brought before them, and then, because of the temporary absence of the Minister in charge, who feels that something has been deleted from his Bill, and because he thinks it has not been properly understood, he claims the right to get it re-inserted. If many such instances occurred on any Committee of which I happened to be a member, I should resign and refuse to take any further part in discussing the matter.
The 10 per cent. relates to paying out the amount paid in unemployment benefit and the amount received in contributions and those two different matters the right hon. Gentleman has not taken into consideration. The sum of £62,000,000 was spent in unemployment benefit last year. The sum of £38,000,000, or thereabouts, was the amount considered, the remainder going towards the debt to repay which there must be a lengthened deficiency period after paying the benefits. To tell us that 16 per cent. was the total cost of administration of £62,000,000 is wrong. It was perhaps 16½ per cent. on the £38,000,000 received, and I suggest that it was only 8¼ per cent. on the total money disbursed. I am not using this as a general attack upon Employment Exchanges' administration. I am not going into the Estimates or into the question of cutting down expenses. I am simply asserting that 10 per cent. was good enough for the other Acts, and now when you are asking for a greater amount, when the deficiency period will be extended over a much longer time, you want to still further extend that period by taking another 2½ per cent. from these slender resources. That is the whole position.
5.0 P.M.
It is said that upstairs the Committee had the idea that this other 2½ per cent.
would reduce the amount or in some way handicap the immediate purposes of the fund. They never thought that for a moment, but they did think that at a time when you are borrowing money and you cannot do this because of the years that will have to pass after this Bill becomes an Act and has ceased to exist, to clear up the debt in the deficiency period would take another £1,000,000, and that will mean extending the deficiency period. If the deficency is to be extended to clear off the debt, we prefer it to be extended by increasing the allowance for the children rather than increasing the amount to be drawn from the fund to meet this extra 2½ per cent. call the Ministry is making. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to ask for this extra 2½ per cent. We are informed by the right hon. Gentleman that he has reduced the expenditure in his Department on the labour administration side. That may be all right, but from my point of view that has very little relationship to this extra call of 2½ per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to put this on a sound financial basis, as he said, let him do so. The State at the present time finds one-fourth of the total income, and three-fourths must be supplied by the other two parties. The other two parties have to find three-fourths of the money, and have no say as to the 10 per cent. which is taken from them. Where is the equality? Would it not be much better for the State to pay one-third, the employers one-third, and the workpeople one-third? Then the total cost of this administration could come from that common fund, and I would suggest, further, that each should have some voice as to the administration of the fund. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman coming and saying that this is sound finance, when that voice comes from the very partner that is not paying its share. It is like the confidence trick, where you are told that there are three bright shillings coming into your pocket if you pay one shilling for it. You pay your shilling, and the man gives you three bright halfpennies. That is the case here.
We are told that the fund should be self-supporting and pay its way, and this comes from the very partner who pretends to be offering us something great and at the same time is robbing us and
not paying his fair share. It seems to me that in the dividing up there is one who stands paramount and whose word must be accepted, one who means the State, and that is the right hon. Gentleman in this case. He says, "I must have a say in it; my Department must do this and do that." I contend that if the fund is to bear all these charges the three parties should bear an equal share, and I hope the House will refuse to re-insert this Clause.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: The Minister has told us that since 1911, during a period of normal unemployment, 10 per cent. has been taken from the fund, but when he says that he has to put the fund on a sound financial basis, I submit to him that now, when things are most abnormal, and when unemployment is so much above the average, is not the time to reverse the process and basis which have held good up to the present.

Dr. MACNAMARA: They have never held good.

Mr. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what I mean. He is attempting to reverse the system which has been in operation up to the present time.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Never.

Mr. THOMSON: The right hon. Gentleman is playing with words. Since 1911 the fund has had to bear only up to 10 per cent., and from 1911 till the present time unemployment, on the whole, has been normal. To-day, when unemployment is abnormal and unheard of in its extent, he suggests that the system, which, whether good or bad, has been in operation, should be altered to the disadvantage of the Insurance Fund. I think the House will agree with me that in the main the fund should be self-supporting, but is this the time, when unemployment on an average is 15 per cent. and in some districts 25 and 30 per cent., to increase the burden on the fund? This is a temporary Measure, and he should leave the system which has held good up

to the present time to continue. Then when the new Measure comes in he can put things on a sound financial basis. We might then make the charge on the State and employé equal and make the fund self-supporting, but I do submit that it is not business and it is not fair now to make an alteration in a system which has held good up to the present, and to penalise the fund to this extent. He tells us that the benefits are not affected, and that is perfectly true, but surely he has on the Floor of the House over and over again used the argument: "I cannot increase these benefits; I cannot give a shilling extra to the child; I cannot decrease the waiting period from six to three days, because, if I did, I should bankrupt my fund." I submit that it is not really fair to the fund, which I know he has so much at heart, to increase these administrative charges at a time when the burden of unemployment is more than the fund can bear.

Lieut.-Commander WILLIAMS: At the present moment you have three parties, the employer, the employé, and the State, contributing to this fund. Out of it, under the Bill, you pay certain benefits and the whole cost of administration. As far as I can see, the only proposal we have here is that, in order to make the fund sounder from a purely financial point of view, and secure better administration, we should raise the percentage taken from the fund from 10 to 12½. I have been somewhat curious in the matter of the cost of administration, and, from the point of view of a representative of the ordinary taxpayer, I would like to know exactly what we have to contribute. I should like to make it clear that what the right hon. Gentleman is doing here is certainly fair to the general community, and I would like to support him and to congratulate him on the efforts that he is making at the present time to get the administration on a sound, financial basis.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 84.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[5.12 p.m.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bonbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bexhell, Sir John Henry


Atkey, A. R.
Barnston, Major Harry
Bigland, Alfred


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Blair, Sir Reginald


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Bonn, Gapt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hambro, Angus Vaidemar
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Han. William Clive
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hennessy, Major J, R. G.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Higham, Charles Frederick
Pratt, John William


Brown, Major D. C.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Purchase, H. G.


Bruton, Sir James
Hinds, John
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Raper, A. Baldwin


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hudson, R. M.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Remnant, Sir James


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Eveiyn (Birm., Aston)
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Renwick, Sir George


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rodger, A. K.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jameson, John Gordon
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jesson, C.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelty)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Seddon, J. A.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Kidd, James
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Ednam, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Lorden, John William
Stewart, Gershom


Evans, Ernest
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
M'Donaid, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Sturrock, J. Long


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camiachie)
Sugden, W. H.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Sutherland, Sir William


Fell, Sir Arthur
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Taylor, J.


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Forrest, Walter
Malone, Major P. B (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Waddington, R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Gardiner, James
Morrison, Hugh
Waring, Major Walter


Gee, Captain Robert
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, William (Dumfries)
Wise, Frederick


Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry
Nail, Major Joseph
Wolmer, Viscount


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. sir Hamar
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perm)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pearce, Sir William
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B S.
Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Raffan, Peter Wilson


Amnion, Charles George
Hallas, Eldred
Rendall, Atheistan


Banton, George
Halls, Walter
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hancock, John George
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Robertson, John


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Gias., Gorbais)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hogge, James Myles
Sexton, James


Bromfield, William
Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Simm, M. T.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Johnstone, Joseph
Spencer, George A.


Casey, T. W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kiley, James Daniel
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Finney, Samuel
Martin, A. E.
Wintringham, Margaret


Foot, Isaac
Mills, John Edmund
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mosley, Oswald
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gillis, William
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Myers, Thomas



Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. Waterson and Mr. Kennedy.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

Major BARNES: I want to ask a question as to the effect of this Clause. By taking this extra 2½ per cent, out of the fund for administration expenses, will not the effect be that the fund will run out more quickly, that the Minister will have to borrow more quickly, and that, in the future, in consequence of this addition to these borrowings from the Treasury, the benefits must be diminished in order to recoup the money, or else the contributions must be increased?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have already explained that the finance of the Bill, as prepared by the actuary, is based on a 12½ per cent, deduction, and in the borrowing powers for which I have asked the calculations have been made on the assumption that the fund will bear the whole of its share in this respect.

Clause added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of railways.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, all persons in the employment of any railway company or a joint committee of two or more such companies who have completed or shall hereafter complete three years' service with such company or committee shall be exempt from the provisions of the said Acts, and the contributions paid under the said Acts by any such company, or committee, or any persons in their employ which would not have been payable had the provision herein contained been contained in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, and made to apply as from the date on which that Act came into operation shall be refunded.—[Mr. Thomas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. THOMAS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is one which I feel the Minister ought to accept. It is moved as much in the interest of the Government as of the men themselves. The real difficulty is that when the original Act was passed railwaymen were exempted from its operation. There can be no doubt that, so far as the Minister himself was concerned, in the discussions we had over this matter, he said he was absolutely clear that the railways were exempted. We accepted that assurance and assumed there would be no difficulty whatever, but soon after the Act became law it was discovered to be necessary to apply to
the Minister of Labour for exemption, as provided in the original Act. We then found ourselves up against this difficulty, that the railway companies, in applying for exemption, had practically to vary their contracts of service. They had to say, in substance: "So far as we are concerned there can be nothing to compel us to retain a man in our employ, and, if we are compelled to dismiss him for any circumstances whatever, we have only to plead this particular exemption in order to justify our position in a Court of Law." It is only fair to say that, so far as the unions were concerned, they never accepted that position. We said quite frankly to the railway companies: "No, we do not intend to put you in a stronger legal position after the passing of the Act than you were in before." Unfortunately, however, there was considerable difficulty.
I am not putting it too high when I say that up till a few weeks ago from 20 to 30 railway companies felt themselves unable, on the advice of their own legal departments, to themselves apply for the exemption, with this curious result, the men thought that they were exempted by statute, the railway companies thought that they were exempted, and further than that the men paid their contribution every week, and the railway companies paid their contributions, but immediately any man claimed benefit from the unemployment exchange, he was told, "You are not exempted from the Act." Therefore the men were paying the contribution for this period, yet immediately they became unemployed, they were actually refused the benefit for which they had paid. It must be obvious to this House that that not only led to misunderstanding but to a very.strong and serious feeling. Fortunately we have got over the difficulty, but it is only fair for the House to remember that that difficulty can crop up in the same form every year. I want my right hon. Friend to realise that this Clause does not take away anything from the existing Act. It does not exempt anyone who is not already exempted, it adds nothing to the Act, and it is strictly in accordance with the draft agreement come to between the right hon. Gentleman and ourselves. It enables him, however, to get out of the unfortunate difficulty we have been in for the past 18 months, and it is for that reason I move its adoption.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am afraid that this new Clause is going to do a great deal more than the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The principal Act of 1920 enabled exception from Unemployment Insurance in certain cases. Among others employés of railway companies were excepted under certain conditions, and one of the conditions was that the employé should not be liable to dismissal except for misconduct or neglect of duty. But many railway companies felt themselves unable to give the necessary certificate, and as my right hon. Friend says, there was very great difficulty in arriving at an understanding as to what would satisfy the law. But we got round the difficulty, and I believe that, with one exception, all the railway companies have come into line and will be able to give the requisite certificates, so that we hope to be able to satisfy the law. My right hon. Friend suggests that we are going to have this trouble every year. We do not want that, of course.
My right hon. Friend is going to cure that evil, and, if he is going to confine himself to ensuring that the law is satisfied, I shall not put any difficulty in the way. All the companies have, I understand, fallen into line with the law. T should be only too glad to avoid a repetition of the difficulty every year, but my right hon. Friend goes further than that. He says that there shall be ruled out of the Insurance Act
All persons in the employment of any railway company or a joint committee of two or more such companies who have completed or shall hereafter complete three years' service with such company or committee.
Does my right hon. Friend say that that involves permanent employment?

Mr. THOMAS: Is not that identical with the words of the certificate of exemption? Those words are taken from the certificate of exemption. The three-years' Clause was the Clause mutually agreed upon between the railway companies, the Ministry of Labour and ourselves. That is the Clause which is in operation now, and it is in order to regularise that that these words are put in.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not my reading. The two forms of statement, either of which would satisfy my right hon. Friend, are as follows. The first is:
The Departmental Committee on Bail-way Agreements and Amalgamations who
heard witnesses on behalf of employers and employed reported 'that one of the main inducements to compete for admission to the railway service is the strong presumption of the permanence of employment during good behaviour. (Paragraph 181 (ii).)' With regard to all railway servants of the classes above described it is the practice of the company not to dismiss them except on the grounds above mentioned, and it is proposed to continue this practice. It sometimes happens that employment is not available for every member of the class on full time, but even in that case dismissal would only take place if the circumstances were most exceptional, the available employment being distributed among the members of the class at less than full time by agreement between employers and employed.
The second form of statement is as follows:
The employment is, having regard to the normal practice of the employer, permanent in character. The employed persons have completed three years' service in the employment, and the other circumstances of the employment make it unnecessary that the employés referred to in this application should be insured under the Act. It is intended to maintain the present practice.
My difficulty is that, although I have the three years, I am not assured as to the permanence of the employment. I am not really opposing my right hon. Friend, except that I do not want him to make such a breach in the scheme of this Bill as to let out persons who may need the protection which it provides; and it may be that the difficulty will arise year after year. Do not let us have that. If, however, before this Bill leaves another place, I can get words which will ensure that the railway servants' occupation is permanent in character, I will give the matter very careful consideration. I cannot, however, take it in this form, because I assure my right hon. Friend that he is making it much too wide, and, by these words which he proposes, would undoubtedly let out a very large number of employés of all kinds who may be the subject of dismissal, and who may need the protection of this Bill. Nevertheless, if we can come to some agreement between the parties which will give us a Clause which will avoid trouble year after year, no one will be happier than I.

Sir F. BANBURY: The actual position at present is that practically all railway servants are exempted from contributions to this fund, and, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts this Clause—

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not.

Sir F. BANBURY: I say "if"—it does not alter the position in any kind of way. The right hon. Gentleman remains exactly as he is at the present moment. The only difference will be that at the end of the year, when the certificate terminates, it will be unnecessary for the railway company or the trade union to apply to the right hon. Gentleman for a fresh certificate. Now it is necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has said, to apply to the Minister for a fresh certificate. What would be the position in the event—which is not an improbable event—of there being another right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Ministry, who might not take the view which is taken by the present Minister? Immense complications would then ensue and very great difficulties would arise, because the railwaymen, who have hitherto been exempted from paying these contributions, would certainly feel very much aggrieved if they were obliged to begin or to resume contributions to which, up to the present time, they have not been subject.

Dr. MACNAMARA: If the conditions of their service were the same.

Sir F. BANBURY: Exactly. As has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, all the companies are now in line. Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman that what he is doing at the present time is taking contributions and refusing to pay benefit to the men. He has done that on two occasions. On one occasion I wrote to him and saw him, and said: "You have taken from the men in my employment their contributions; they have now left that employment, and you actually refuse to give them the benefit for which they have paid." That was last autumn, I think—I am not sure that it was not even last summer; and nothing has happened. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the money and has not given it to the men whose right it is. I wrote to him a week ago with reference to another case, pointing out that not only had he refused to give the man in question his proper benefit under the Act, but he had actually refused to return him his contributions. The man in question says, "If I cannot get the benefit for which I have paid, and for which the company has paid, at any rate, return me my contributions"; but this has been refused. In these cir-
cumstances, is it not absolutely absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to refuse to accept this Clause? He is not going to lose a single shilling—unless, of course, he is under the impression that perhaps one or two companies would not come in, and that he would be able to take their contributions and then refuse to give the men or the companies that for which they have paid. I do not know whether that was in his mind, but, unless it was in his mind, I cannot conceive why on earth it is that he cannot accept this Clause. I would make an earnest appeal to him. I had the honour of supporting him in the Lobby this afternoon, and now I would appeal to him to accept this Clause. It will not hurt him in the least; it will not cost him a shilling, unless in the circumstances to which I have just referred, and I am quite certain that he does not mean to do that. It will, on the other hand, save him a very great deal of trouble. It will not hurt him in the least, because, if he accepts it and finds afterwards that it is really absolutely impossible—although I am quite certain that he will not—he always has a remedy in another place.

Mr. THOMAS: If ever a Minister ought to be safe, my right hon. Friend ought to be. He knows that anything proposed from this side, if it were dangerous, would, by the very nature of things, be safeguarded by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). The Minister can sit on that bench absolutely content and assured that, if there were any proposal from this side that would be dangerous to him, the right hon. Baronet would be there, ever on the alert to protect him. What happens to-day? I make a proposal, and the right hon. Gentleman not only says that it is a good proposal, but he says to the House of Commons as the guardian of the public purse and to me in the interests of efficiency and economy: "Do not make a mistake now that you have got the chance." If the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister had the backing of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and of myself, he would be absolutely safe.

Mr. INSKIP: A new coalition!

Mr. THOMAS: A new coalition; and I am quite sure that if such a Clause, backed by such opinion, went to the other
House, it would not attempt to interfere with it. The difficulty in which we are is this, that, if we go to a Division, we shall get a number of hon. Members who have not heard the merits of our ease coming into the Lobby on the instructions of the Government Whip. That would be unfortunate for us. We should have the moral victory, but the right hon. Gentleman would have the plums, and I am too old a Parliamentary hand to allow myself to be led into that position. On the other hand, neither the right hon. Baronet nor myself wishes to put the right hon. Gentleman in a difficulty. We do not want to exempt anyone who is not now exempt. We do not want to add one solitary individual to the exemption list to which we have all agreed. All that we want to do is to prevent the misunderstanding and difficulty and, indeed, serious friction which has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman's point is not on the merits of our Clause, but he is afraid that it goes much too wide. If he will accept it now, and if he finds, in consultation with his advisers between now and then, that it does go beyond what we clearly say it is intended to do, and therefore will place him in a difficulty, I certainly shall be quite content, if it is amended in another place, to accept that Amendment, provided only that it meets that difficulty. I would suggest that that is a very fair deal. The object is to get the right hon. Gentleman, as well as ourselves, out of a difficulty which has caused endless trouble to the Gentlemen sitting under the Gallery, who, with the Minister and myself, have been trying to get over this difficulty. The very fact that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and myself have formed a coalition in his interests will, I hope, move the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Clause.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am very much touched by the spectacle of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby coming arm in arm with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London to appeal to the Ministry of Labour. I feel very much inclined to say "How happy I could be with either," but I do not feel quite easy when I am with both. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby says that he does not want us to exempt anyone who is not already exempted, and
if the conditions of service remain such as to secure the exemption—

Mr. THOMAS: No alteration in the contract at all—

Dr. MACNAMARA: —it gets rid of most of our difficulties. All we want to see is that there will not be perhaps another interpretation as to what the law really is and have the whole difficulty all over again. For that purpose I am asked to accept the Second Reading of the Clause and both my right hon. Friends say, "if it does more than you wish or than we desire amend it in another place." I would rather put it the other way. I would rather say, let this be rejected on the understanding that I will do my level best to frame a Clause, with the Parliamentary draftsman, which shall secure that which both my right hon. Friends desire. I hope they will accept that offer.

Mr. THOMAS: On the clear understanding that when the Bill comes from another place a new Clause will be inserted for the purpose—I think that is a fair proposition—I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Mr. LAWSON: We have had a perfect example of collective bargaining and it is a tribute both to the trade union and to the business side. Last year when the former Bill was before the House I stood for contracting out generally, but I do not believe, generally speaking, after that principle has been rejected, in any particular organisation coming and claiming that right. In this case further there is this to be said that the industry generally is exempted with the exception of the Great Northern Railway.

Mr. THOMAS: No there is no exception.

Mr. LAWSON: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if this is the right interpretation. Do I take it that, if this agreement be arrived at, people who are sure of permanent employment will be allowed to come out of the ordinary Insurance Act?

Mr. THOMAS: They are already out.

Mr. LAWSON: Do I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that people who are not sure of permanent employment will then come into the Act?

Mr. THOMAS: They are already in.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The position is this. Those who are already exempt by the conditions of their service remain exempt. I will give an undertaking to see, for the avoidance of trouble year by year, that their case is perfectly stated in the Act. I assume that the particular railway company which came in last will be covered by that Clause.

Sir F. BANBURY: I must see the Clause. I cannot promise that I shall be governed by a Clause which I have not seen. If it carry out what the right hon. Gentleman desires—

Motion and Clause, by leave, with drawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Waiting Period.)

Sub-section (3) of Section three of Act No. 2 of 1921 is hereby repealed, and paragraph (1) of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which provides that Unemployment Benefit shall be payable in respect of each week of any continuous perod of unemployment after the first three days of unemployment) and paragraph (b) of Subsection (2) of Section seven of the principal Act (which defines a continuous period of unemployment) shall have effect as if re-enacted in this Act.—[Mr. Sexton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I was very pleased to hear that there is a possibility of piercing the right hon. Gentleman's armour in his official capacity. I have been endeavouring to do that for over two years and I have not succeeded. I do not know if there are subtle influences at work, but I flatter myself I put a much better case, and in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, a much more eloquent case, for my side of the question than that put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas). My eloquence is usually wasted on the desert air, and facts and arguments have very little influence in the Division Lobby, where ignorance is bliss and reigns supreme, but in the hope of catching here and there a stray Member who has not heard the arguments before I will put my case, which is the case of the bottom dog, a man who is compelled by law to contribute to the Insurance Act, who is idle more than 50 per cent, of his time and never receives any benefit. The irony of the whole thing
is that a man who is compelled to pay and is idle more than 60 per cent, of his time is contributing to the support of men who work three weeks out of the month and because they are idle for the fourth week, having drawn three full weeks' pay, are considered short-timers under the Act and get benefit. The right hon. Gentleman in Committee yesterday endeavoured, unintentionally, to confuse the issue by making it appear that the Casual labourer, by losing a day, did not lose a week's compensation. That was not my point at all. My point is that it is not a question of the man losing a day's benefit when he is qualified, but it is a question of his never being able to qualify, and the reason of it is this. Six days are the qualifying period. They can be either six continuous days or they can be two days at the beginning of the week, two days' employment and two days idle at the end of the week, and two days unemployed in the following week. In other words, in a period of a fortnight the six days can be intermittent—two days employed and two days unemployed. I should like to show the House, as I have shown the right hon. Gentleman over and over again, the physical impossibility of a large percentage of casual labourers ever being able to qualify. Take the worst case—the case of a man who is employed half a day on Monday and is idle for the rest of the week. That one half-day prevents him qualifying during that week. He has to go over into the next week and to be idle one day in the next week. Then he gets employed en the Monday of the following week half a day and he is idle next day. He is disqualified and has to begin all over again, and, although he has only had two and a half days' employment in the 12 days, he is compelled to pay his contribution, not for one week but for two weeks. He has only been employed two and a half days, he has paid two contributions, but he is cut out and has to commence all over again.
Take the other side of the question, a case I have put over and over again, not as an isolated, but as a typical case of what is happening. A man is idle six full working days. He is idle from Friday of this week till Friday night of the following week at 5 o'clock. Under ordinary circumstances that man would have fulfilled the qualifying period of six days, but what happens? The foreman
who employs him tells him there is a job at 5 o'clock. He is between the devil and the deep sea. If he does not take it he will not be employed next time. If he does take this job for a few hours—what is known as a ready-money job—when he goes to claim the following week it is pointed out to him that, although he had qualified for the six full working days, because he worked overtime for two hours the whole qualifying period is wiped out and he has to begin all over again. He has to pay his contribution out of the two hours that he has worked. The absurdity of the whole business is that Sunday does not count. A dock labourer can go to work from Sunday morning till midnight at double pay and can earn 30s. He may be idle all the next week and draw his benefit. The Gilbertian position the casual labourer is in under this Act it is absolutely impossible to conceive. I shall continue to bombard the right hon. Gentleman, as long as I have a voice to speak, with the absolutely iniquitous position in which the casual labourer is placed. A semi-permanently employed man who is in receipt of full wages for three weeks out of the month receives benefit while a man who is unemployed for most of his time does not receive any. What we are asking is that the three days' qualifying period shall be restored. If a man works now on Monday, is idle on Tuesday, works on Wednesday, is idle on Thursday, works on Friday, and is idle on Saturday, he is unemployed for 50 per cent. of his time and because there are not two days of unemployment intervening between one day and the other he has to pay his contribution and will never qualify under the six days' qualifying period. I want the right hon. Gentleman to recognise the absolute injustice of the application of these conditions to a casual labourer as compared with a semi-permanently employed man. The three days' qualifying period will give them a better chance.
6.0 P.M.
The right hon. Gentleman said upstairs that to apply that would cost something like £3,500,000 extra,. I tried to point out to him, and I repeat it now, that instead of losing money his would save it. He confesses that one of the principal reasons why he introduced the six day qualifying period was owing to the numerous applications of casual labour under the three day system. I would like him to
compare the statistics for the two periods and he will find, if I am not mistaken, that the applications under the six day period, not that they are all granted, have grown simply because the men who used to take short jobs of a day or a day and a half are now refusing to take these jobs because they know that they can get more out of the unemployment benefit by being idle the full week than if they had worked a day or a half day during the week, and it is only human that having this knowledge they should act upon it.
These men know that no two hatches of a ship are alike, that the fore hatch is smaller than the main hatch, and so on. Therefore a man knows if he goes to a job, where a machine is pumping grain out of a hold, how long the job is going to last. He sums it up: "This means a half day, and if I take this job for half a day and am idle all the week I shall have to pay my contribution and get no benefit this week or the following week." The right hon. Gentleman will find that, if a better opportunity is given to these men to qualify, there will be fewer applications than there are now, and that the £3,500,000 will not be required. The right hon. Gentleman led us to believe yesterday that some modification of the existing system was already in his mind. If he can convince me that that can be done and that some means may be created whereby the man will not be disqualified by being idle one day and working the next day it will go very far to reconcile me, and help the poor unfortunate men who are compelled to pay contribution and get no benefit. But the existing law is responsible for this mischief, and unless I get an assurance of some modification of the present condition I shall be reluctantly compelled, despite the regard which I have for the right hon. Gentleman, to force this question to a division.

Mr. ROSE: I beg to second the Motion.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend has expressed regret for having to bring forward this Clause again to-day, and he has been good enough to say that his regret is based on his regard for me. But it is the other way around. I have the greatest regard for him, and it distresses me very much for that reason that I am not able to accept his Amendment. But he wants us to go back to the three-day waiting period instead of the six-day waiting period. There was a
six-day waiting period in the Act of 1911 and that continued down to November, 1920.

Mr. SEXTON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the fact that in 1911 we were not in? We did not come in until 1920.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That is so. The dockers did not come in until 1920. I am stating in a few sentences the history of this waiting period. It was six days under the Act of 1911, and it remained six days down to November, 1920, when, I agree, those whom my hon. Friend represents so eloquently did come in for the first time, and we made it three days from November, 1920, to July, 1921, when it went back to six days, and I propose to perpetuate the six days. My hon. Friend says that it will be more advantageous from the point of view of casual labour of all kinds, including those whom he represents, to go back to the three days. His difficulty is the hard cases which arise as a result of, he says, this rule of a six-day waiting period. I shall not weary the House with a very wide variation of combinations of days on and days off under which a man can get benefit. I gave it in Committee in detail, and it is on record. The combinations are very wide, and cover all except the rarest cases. Take the case which my hon. Friend represents. I gave the figure upstairs of the benefit which they have drawn in the Liverpool docks from this scheme. I gave a week in July, and my hon. Friend at once said that that was not a fair week to take, because there was then a dispute in the coal industry. I recognised the force of that, and therefore I made further inquiries, and will give the result of my further inquiry. I take the 13 weeks ending 14th March, 1922, which cover the latest figures available. Under this scheme, which has been referred to so harshly, the total contributions from the Liverpool docks in the period mentioned was £14,000, and the total benefit paid to unemployed workers at the Liverpool docks during the same period was £76,000.
It cannot be quite such a bad scheme which even in these cases produces this result, but undoubtedly there is the extreme case which my hon. Friend has put with such force, the case of the man who
works half a day and then has five and a-half days off, and then has work for a day or a half-day which breaks up the waiting period. I have many times sat down with my officers and endeavoured to frame something which would meet that case and similar cases, which are extremely rare, and I have invariably failed to produce auything which would not create hardship in other directions or open the door far wider than my hon. Friend would ask, and in such a way as to destroy all vestige of anything like an insurance principle. I tried so lately as yesterday, in view of the Report stage to-day, but we could not frame anything that we could safely put down and that would not create all sorts of difficulties in other directions. But this is not the end of the matter. We are making an investigation in my offices, in view of the permanent structure which we shall build hereafter when we are out of the present emergency, and my hon. Friend knows further that I am getting into touch with the Transport Workers Committee. We have got the names of the employés, and I hope to have the names of the employers, and we will get them to meet together and examine this matter to see if anything can be done—under the existing law I do not think that very much can—in the direction which my hon. Friend urges, and I shall be glad to take counsel together with the members of my own Committee in view of the preparation of a permanent scheme so as to try and place it upon lines which will cover all just and reasonable claims.

Mr. SEXTON: That Committee is to deal with maintenance and unemployment grants.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes. Though they have got the wider reference they are covering this point as well. I cannot at this moment prepare a Clause which would meet my hon. Friend without doing considerable harm in other directions. Therefore I would ask him not to press this new Clause now, but to let us do our best to prepare something for the time when we are arranging a permanent scheme, which would cover these few cases.

Mr. SEXTON: With that assurance, I would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 7 (2) of principal Act.)

"Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section seven of the principal Act shall have effect as though the words 'five shillings' were substituted for the words 'three shillings and fourpence.'"—[Mr. R. Young.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. R. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The right hon. Gentleman is aware that under the present Statute a man following a subsidiary employment, not his regular occupation, may receive benefit if the remuneration from that subsidiary occupation does not exceed 3s. 4d. per day. The position arises now, owing to the very large number of men on the unemployment dole, that a certain number of men, not only those who are engaged in working the Act, but others besides, are getting a little over £1 per week and, as a result of that, they are deprived of their unemployment benefit, which means that in normal circumstances, when unemployment is not so great as it is to-day, these men may have £1 a week, and if they are unemployed they will receive the benefit, but owing to the fact that they have some work on hand to-day, in administering this Act, they receive a little more, and as a result of receiving that little more they are deprived of the benefit which otherwise they would have received. They are therefore in a position that if they chose to throw up their work they would receive more for their sustenance during the week than if they continued to work. Therefore we suggest in the new Clause that instead of 3s. 4d. the sum should be 5s. per day. We think it is a very great hardship that men who are helping the Minister of Labour in the efficient carrying out of the payment of unemployment benefit due to those who are in the streets should themselves be penalised as the result of their work for the Ministry. Many of them at present are not in receipt of unemployment benefit and they are not willing to throw up this subsidiary work out of loyalty to their union and those fellow members who happen to be unemployed, for they recognise that a very large number of the men in the trade unions are averse from drawing their unemployment benefit from any other source than their trade union. Another thing that arises out of this disqualification for unemployment benefit is
that there is no saving in the long run. Of the men who, as a result of the small remuneration they have, are deprived of unemployment benefit, possibly many go to the boards of guardians for relief. Consequently the cost is only shifted from the unemployment fund to the funds of the local authority. I hope the Minister will give the matter his sympathetic attention.

Mr. ROSE: I beg to second the Motion. As I said when speaking on a previous Clause, there is a sum of £220,000 to be paid out of this fund next year for services of the character already mentioned. There was £500,000 last year, but the amount has been reduced by £280,000. I suggest, without specifying any particular cases, that this is just one of the instances of sawing off the tail of the unfortunate bottom dog all the time and stopping the little people from getting anything.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I wish to support the Motion and to give an illustration of the way the Act works with peculiar hardship. The case came to my attention, only last week. A branch secretary, ordinarily working in a shipyard, was disqualified from getting any unemployment benefit because he was drawing 3s. 4d. a day. In addition, he was putting in considerable time as a representative member of the local employment committee. When he went to the local employment committee and asked for his-subsistence allowance for loss of time in doing that work, he was told, "You cannot have any allowance because you are unemployed." When he went to the same Exchange to draw his unemployment benefit they said, "You cannot have any unemployment benefit because you are not out of work." He was getting the 3s. 4d. per day. The case seemed peculiarly hard. It can be seen how such a man is penalised, for, supposing he had a wife and four children, he would, if unemployed, get 24s. a week in benefit. Such men are in a worse position than they would be in if they came under the Act. There is surely strong ground for making such an Amendment of the Act as is suggested.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): I am not quite certain whether the hon. Gentleman who spoke last said
that a man cannot earn £1 a week and still draw unemployment pay. The whole question turns on Section 7 of the principal Act. That Section provides:
A person shall not be deemed to be unemployed on any day on which he is following any occupation from which he derives any remuneration or profit, unless that occupation has ordinarily been followed by him in addition to his usual employment and outside the ordinary working hours of that employment, and the remuneration received therefrom in respect of that day does not exceed three shillings and fourpence. …
Three shilling and fourpence per day is a pound a week. The effect of the new Clause would be that a man drawing 30s. a week would be entitled to unemployment benefit. I cannot believe that that is what is meant. Can hon. Members say that that is the type of hard case which the Bill is designed to meet? The Bill provides for cases where people do extra work and still earn £1 a week. Such people can get the extra £1 or 20s. or 22s. a week, according to the size of their families. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves the Bill provides as much as we can do.

Mr. R. YOUNG: Is it not a fact that a man who earns 20s. 6d. a week, in doing work for the Insurance Department, is deprived, if he has a family of three or four children, of the amount that he

would receive if he gave up the job? The man needs only to throw up that part of the work which applies to unemployment insurance as carried on through the trade unions, and then he would be entitled to 24s. as unemployment benefit.

Sip J. BAIRD: The matter in question is the sixpence over the 20s. There must be a limit, and whatever the limit there must be hard cases.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: Cannot the hon. Baronet give us some indication that the Government will reconsider this matter so that a man who is engaged in this subsidiary occupation should not be in a worse position than he would be in if he threw up his job and went on to the unemployment fund? Surely if 30s. is too much the difference might be divided and 25s. be permitted.

Sir J. BAIRD: Is there not another possibility? Why should not the payment for the subsidiary occupation be brought down to £1 per week? That would bring a man within the limit entitling him to unemployment benefit.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the hon. Baronet aware that trade union rules are carried out strictly, and that we cannot do that?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 201.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[6.28p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwien)


Banton, George
Hancock, John George
Robertson, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hayward, Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Simm, M. T.


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Sitch, Charles H.


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Cape, Thomas
Johnstone, Joseph
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Waterson, A. E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kennedy, Thomas
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Devlin, Joseph
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Wintringham, Margaret


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mills, John Edmund
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas



Foot, Isaac
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Galbraith, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. W. Smith.


Gillis, William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Austin, Sir Herbert
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Barnett, Major Richard W.


Atkey, A. R.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Barnston, Major Harry


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. C. H. (Devizes)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Beilairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Greer, Sir Harry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bonn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Gretton, Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Bigland, Alfred
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Birchail, J. Dearman
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Parker, James


Bird, Sir R. B. {Wolverhampton, W.)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pearce, Sir William


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Blair, Sir Reginald
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hambro, Angus Vaidemar
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pratt, John William


Breese, Major Charles E.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Purchase, H. G.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Raeburn, Sir William H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Ramsden, G. T.


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Brown, Major D. C.
Higham, Charles Frederick
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.


Bruton, Sir James
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir s. J. G.
Rees, Sir J. D, (Nottingham, East)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Renwick, Sir George


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Rodger, A. K.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hudson, R. M.
Rounded, Colonel R. F.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Carr, W. Theodore
Hurd, Percy A.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Casey, T. W.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Scddon, J. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Jameson, John Gordon
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jesson, C.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Stanton, Charles Butt


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llaneily)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Stevens, Marshall


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kidd, James
Stewart, Gershom


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sturrock, J. Long


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sutherland, Sir William


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lloyd, George Butler
Taylor, J.


Daiziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Waddington, R.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
McMicking, Major Gilbert
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Eiveden, Viscount
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macpherson Rt. Hon. James I.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Evans, Ernest
Magnus, Sir Philip
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Martin, A. E.
Winterton, Earl


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Wise, Frederick


Forestier-Walker, L.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Forrest, Walter
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Woolcock, William James U.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison, Hugh
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Gardiner, James
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Gee, Captain Robert
Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Murray, Hon. Gideon (St. Rollox)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Murray, John (Leeds, West)



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Glyn, Major Ralph
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




McCurdy.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. V. c. 30, s. 8.)

Section eight of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920 (which sets forth disqualifications for Unemployment Benefit), shall have effect as if for the words "reason of a stoppage of work which is due to," there were substituted the words "the withdrawal of his labour in order to participate in."—[Colonel Penry Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I do not intend to repeat the speech which I made in the Committee on this subject, but I should like to remind the House of the history of this matter. When the original Unemployment Insurance Act came before the House in 1911 it was laid before the House in a form which would have prevented the injustice we are now seeking to remedy. It stipulated that employment benefit should be refused to a man who was directly concerned in a dispute in the factory or workshop where he was engaged. As the Bill passed through
Committee, however, that provision was altered, and when it emerged from the Committee it was in such a form that if there was a dispute—either a strike or a lock-out—in the factory where a man was engaged, he was automatically disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit. Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1920 provides:
An insured contributor who has lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute in the factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed shall be disqualified.
We are seeking to make that read as follows:
An insured contributor who has lost employment by the withdrawal of his labour in order to participate in a strike or lock-out shall be disqualified.
That clearly entitles the man who is thrown out of work by no fault of his own, who has not even a vote in the matter, to receive his unemployment benefit. Up to now he has been deprived of that right. It is really a stupid provision to continue to-day, because a man has only to walk across the street and go to the guardians and draw relief, and it is therefore taking the obligation off the insurance fund and putting it on to the guardians. We say this unemployment question is an Imperial question, and not a local question. A very curious situation may arise under this disqualification. I am credibly informed that in certain places in England to-day there are more men out of work than there are employed. If that is the case you may have this position arising. You may have a body of men working in a factory. There is a dispute between their employers and their trade union. There may also be men out of work and drawing unemployment benefit belonging to that society who are equally entitled to vote on the dispute with the men who are working. You may have the men who are in receipt of benefit, by their votes drawing out of work the men who are in work, and who, perhaps, do not wish to stop. The result will be that the men who are out of work will continue to draw unemployment benefit, the men who have been in work up to this point will not be entitled to unemployment benefit, but will be entitled to their trade union strike pay, while labourers and others who have no vote and no responsibility in the matter, will get neither
strike pay nor unemployment benefit. That is a situation which cannot continue. It is unjust, and in these days we cannot afford, when dealing with labour and with large bodies of men, to allow injustices to continue. Whatever the difficulties of the situation may be, we ought to get rid of this sense of injustice.
This controversy has been going on now for 11 years. We have all been engaged in it. Members of the party to which I belong, members of the Labour party, and members of the Conservative party have been engaged in it. I believe the Minister of Agriculture moved the original Amendment to rectify the wrong of which we are now complaining. The Homo Secretary was leader of the little body of Members who in 1914 sought to get rid of the disqualification. The right hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. G. Barnes) was one of the original agitators in this matter when he delivered his speech on the Second Reading of the earlier Measure. He seems to have forgotten that speech, but I can give him the reference if he cares to have it. I think at last we have got the Minister of Labour to make some real advance towards a settlement of this question. I will give the right hon. Gentleman credit for good intentions. I believe he is as anxious as we are, to get rid of this inequality and injustice and the whole difficulty with him, has been a difficulty of administration. He has agreed to set up a Committee to which this matter shall be referred. If he will make that Committee really representative I think we are in a fair way of getting this matter settled. We do not wish to have it hung up indefinitely. I do not mind about the elections. We are not doing this for electioneering purposes. As I said, Tory, Liberal, and Labour parties have all been concerned in efforts to remove this inequality. I believe, as far as the labour world is concerned, it is a matter of vital importance that it should be remedied forthwith. I would not have moved this new Clause were it not for the fact that, as an agreement has been come to on the matter, I think Members of the House who were not members of the Committee, but who have for years taken an interest in the matter, should be made fully cognisant of the whole arrangement which we have made with my right hon. Friend. Therefore, I move this new Clause formally, in order to give my right hon. Friend an opportunity of stating
exactly what course of action he is going to take. I beg of him not to divest himself of the responsibility of ultimately settling it. When he sets up that Committee, I beg of him, both with regard to the labour representatives and also the employers' representatives, to select men of the highest integrity and the greatest breadth of view—men who will not look at the question from a circumscribed point of view, but who will take the broadest possible point of view, in the national interest, in order that they may arrive at some settlement of the question, and thus remedy a grievance which has now existed for 11 years.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend has put the case so clearly that there is no need for me to add more than a few words. I would remind the Minister that last year when we considered this matter in Committee we then thought we had come to an agreement. The Minister was most sympathetic as he always has been on this matter. He said if a Committee representing employers and employed came together and found a formula to get over some of the administrative difficulties which exist, he would raise no objection to its being embodied in the Bill of that year. Unfortunately agreement was not achieved. I desire on this occasion to make sure that we are going a step further than we did last time. I suggest to the Minister that this ad hoc Committee which he has promised should consist not merely of representatives of employers and employed, but of representatives of his own Department—independent men—in order that we may not get into the impassé which we got into last time. I would like also to ask him whether he will be prepared to take the finding of the majority of that Committee and not, I will not say shelter himself behind any division of opinion, but not refuse to take action in the matter. I submit that this is a matter for the House and for the Government to settle, and that no one section should be able to put a veto on action being taken., and I suggest that the Minister in the first place and House in the second place should be responsible for finding a way out, and not let one party to the dispute stand in the way of a settlement. I hope the Minister can assure us that the Com-
mittee will be of a representative character, not merely of the employers and employed, but that there will be independent men on it, and that he will take the finding of the majority of the Committee, and not delay action if one section happen to stand out, as they have done up to the present. After the speech which we have heard from a large employer of labour in the North, who is representative of the great body of employers, I think the House will realise that there is no real difficulty on that side if we only get men of the right breadth of view to deal with the question. I should like to ask the Minister how soon he will set up the Committee, realising that it is impossible to embody any finding in this particular Act, hut we hope the Committee will be set up at once and that action will be taken as soon as possible after it has reported.

Mr. CLYNES: Before the right hon. Gentleman addresses himself to this Clause, there are two or three sentences which I would like to utter, because on the Order Paper, in my name, there is a new Clause similar in intention to the one now before the House. As my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this new Clause said, this question has been before the House and before various Committees of the House since 1911. If those who might take part in any Division upon this question could be in the House and listen to the merits of the claim which is made, and free to settle upon those merits, it is certain that a change would take place in the law as it now is, for, regardless of party and regardless of interests, the House is responsive to appeals grounded in absolute equity and in themselves so fair as to be irresistible when they are presented. The matter, as we see it, is this. The law obliges workmen, when in work, to pay for a benefit when they are out of work. There are times when certain men, who have to pay under those conditions, are unemployed, through no fault of their own, and what we suggest is that at such times, on such occasions, men should be entitled to receive their benefit, when through no fault of their own they are out of work, because when they were in work they -were compelled to pay. The whole principle of this plan of insurance in relation to the unemployed is founded upon that condition. Men who throw themselves
out of work, either through giving up their job or who collectively and with their fellow workmen take a part in some industrial dispute, clearly are disqualified, and we are not making any claim on their behalf, but it is the fate of a large number of men in industry to be the victims of circumstances over which they have no control, which they cannot terminate, and which in no way they have caused. It frequently happens that such victims are the poorest of the working classes, men who earn the lowest rates of wages, but whose contributions are as high for this purpose as the contributions of the higher paid men, and all the circumstances point to the desirablity, as an act of justice, of making a change in the law.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who, I think, is seized of the equities of the question, is faced with administrative difficulties, but I suggest to him that no difficulty should be permitted permanently to stand in the way of a right being established, once that right is clearly understood. It is the function of Ministers, it is the business and special duty of administrative Departments, to overcome administrative difficulties when they are repeatedly brought before their notice, and when, in order to do so, an act of justice should be done. As other hon. Members have said, we do not desire unduly to labour questions, the arguments of which have been expanded and repeated very frequently in this House, but I wish to put to my right hon. Friend a point which has so far not been expressed. I gather that upstairs my right hon. Friend made a proposal to the effect that at some early date a Committee, no doubt an impartial and competent Committee for the purpose, should be created by him to investigate and report upon the question. I do not know how far my right hon. Friend feels that he is committed to accept the findings of that Report, but I should hope that if anything like an agreed formula can be suggested to him to meet what is claimed, founded on justice, he will have no hesitation in making it part of the law of the land. As to the question as to what is going to happen in the meantime, it may take months, it may mean that it will be impossible for Parliament in this Session to take in hand the findings of any Report and
transform them into legislation, so that I think we are entitled to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can take some steps which will provide for the interval and enable him to use his discretion, even before this Report, in relation to these claims grounded in justice, in order that no further wrong should be done to men who are compelled to pay.
I shall be very much interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say under that head. That is the central point, indeed, of the new Clause which stands in my name, and it is that part of it which distinguishes it from the particular Clause now before the House, and as we have not an opportunity to move a Clause in the terms of the one standing in my name, that is a point that I press on the attention of my right hon. Friend. I hope, therefore, he will be able to give us some assurance that, pending this act of justice which he desires to be taken by the Government in due course, some provisions will be made whereby no further wrong shall be done to men who may, between now and the change in the law, be thrown out of work through no fault of their own.

Dr. MACNAMARA: We are all familiar with the great interest displayed in this question on every occasion that any Unemployment Insurance Bill has been before the House, or in Committee, upstairs or downstairs. My hon. Friend has quoted to us the original form of the Bill, and he is quite right. As it was first introduced in 1911, it said:
A workman who loses employment by reason of a trade dispute involving a strike or lockout by which he is directly affected shall be disqualified from receiving Unemployment Benefit so long as the strike or lock-out continues.
That was the original form of the Bill, but it was not considered to be equitable, and by way of Parliamentary compromise we got the longer Clause 8 (1), which has been a part of all insurance Acts from 1911 onwards. I know there are hard cases. I admit it, but my difficulty is to find the line of equity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) says, "We will leave that to you." That is what his Amendment says. That is a pretty considerable responsibility, and I wonder if he has any idea of the number of complaints I get of the findings of Courts of Referees and Umpires, independent people, who are right
outside my authority. If I tried to solve this problem myself, I fancy those complaints would multiply many times. My right hon. Friend says it is no good talking like that, and that the functions of Ministers are to remove difficulties. All I can say is that you can say that with much greater emphasis on that side of the House than you can on this. That is my experience, at any rate, and I think my right hon. Friend has had reason to share in that view in his time. Therefore what I said, in 1920, I think, when this particular feature was before us, was that if I can have submitted to me a proposal which is acceptable to the main parties, the employers and the employed persons—an agreed proposition—and it is workable, I will not put any undue obstacle in the way; but I have not got that.
I do not think, however, I can rest on that any longer. It is up to me to do something, or it might be said, "You made a proposition which you knew would never be able to be implemented, and you are riding off on that." That is not my intention. I thought I would like the three parties interested, namely, the employers, the employed persons, and the State, to sit down together and see if they can come to a concordat upon this question. Upstairs I undertook this, and I think I must now take it up, for it will be a long time, I am afraid, before the two parties immediately concerned will of their own volition get together to solve this, if it can be solved. Therefore, I will appoint a Committee ad hoc, representative of both employers and employed persons really representative, as my hon. Friends wish, of the highest integrity, and the greatest breadth of view, to examine the working of Clause 8 (1) and report to me, and if I can get anything like an agreed formula—and I use the term deliberately, accepting my hon. Friend's phrase; I do not want to shelter myself behind any question of complete unanimity—if I can get anything like an agreed formula, I will certainly recommend it to my colleagues for insertion in the permanent structure of our insurance legislation in the future, when we come to build up that structure. I cannot undertake to do anything, in this emergency Measure, which would pretend to solve the problem at the present time, and I cannot undertake in
the meantime to be the person who shall of his own discretion, such as he has, solve this problem, but I will undertake to appoint a Committee.

Mr. THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman confine it to employers and employed?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I shall certainly add representatives of the Labour Ministry, obviously.

Mr. THOMSON: As members of the Committee, I hope?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly, and I am very glad indeed to hear one hon. Member at least say a good word for the Labour Ministry. It is quite refreshing. I will do my best to secure that it forms part of our permanent provision, but the hon. Member must not demand that I should undertake to do anything in the way of legislation for the rest of this Session. I do not know that I can do that, but at any rate, when we come to the end of this emergency period, and at that time set out to build up a permanent scheme of insurance, I shall hope to be able to put something into such a Bill as will remove this long standing trouble.

Colonel WILLIAMS: When will the right hon. Gentleman set up the Committee?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take steps immediately to consider who shall be appointed, and will appoint it as soon as possible.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: I am very disappointed with the reply of the Minister to the Leader of the Labour party. I thought something would be done in the meantime to meet the grievances of those who are at present suffering on account of this inequality and injustice. The Minister has admitted that if a man is thrown out of employment through no fault of his own he is entitled to benefit, but the view he puts forward now is that because two parties, employers and representatives of the men, have failed to come to an agreement, and to submit a proposal that will be acceptable to himself, he is not prepared to accept this Clause. That is monstrous. If I have paid for a certain benefit and that benefit is not paid me because two outside parties fail to submit a satisfactory proposal to the Minister,
that makes the injustice and inequality greater still. In the opening stages of this Debate one of my hon. Friends was discussing the question of the money for administering this Bill, and he made the complaint that the Minister was taking too much power, because the State did not make the same contribution as the employer and the workman. The Minister now has the power to administer this Bill, and to give justice and equality to these people w-ho are entitled to the benefit, yet he, throws the responsibility on another two parties who are not affected in any way. We ought to have had a more satisfactory reply from him than we have received, because we are in it every day.
I will give one illustration. I will take—and the hon. Members for Middlesbrough will understand this—a steel works with half a dozen fitters employed, or, if you like, a dozen operative bricklayers. They have a dispute, perhaps not a strike. They may be kicking over the traces themselves. I have a thousand men employed in that steel works, and because those men stop work and my thousand members are employed in that particular department, they get no benefit at all according to this Bill. On the other side of the road is a works to which this steel works supplies tin plate bars, and because these people are on strike that works cannot get tin plate bars. Those people on the other side of the road are entitled to the benefit. Well! I do not understand Acts of Parliament, and I do not understand why the Minister could not settle a little question like that himself, why he could not go to South Wales, see the employer himself, and ask whether these members of the Steel Smelters' Union were implicated in the dispute. The employer would say at once, "No." If they were implicated he would be only too glad to tell the right hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why he does not come forward and settle this himself at once. I am very dissatisfied, and if I have anything to do with the Amendment I will force it to a division owing to the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I, like my hon. Friend who represents Pontypool (Mr. Griffiths), am highly dissatisfied with the reply of the Minister in charge of the Bill. This is a vexed question, as the
House knows. I have raised it in questions and Debates time and time again, and I want to remind the Minister of Labour of what happened during the joiners' dispute on the Clyde. He is perfectly well aware that I made representations to him regarding that matter. He knows what happened there under this Section. Because the joiners declined to accept a reduction of 12s. a week, they were put out on the streets, and others were put out as well—boiler-makers, red-leaders, and men who had never handled wood inside the yard, except to light their pipes. Yet they were refused benefit because the joiners were on strike. As a result of representations, the umpire, who was deciding all the cases, said that, owing to the depression in trade now existing, there was no evidence to show that, had there been no dispute in the yard, the men who were out would be working, and he granted them benefit, dating it back to February. That was a wise decision, but it ought to have been given earlier. These men were not implicated in the dispute. They had not a right to vote; they could not turn up at their branch meetings and say: "We will not strike"; and because the joiners refused to accept a reduction, boilermakers, red-leaders, and engineers of all classes, as well as labourers in the yard, who were not members of any trade union at all, and who, therefore, could not get lock-out benefit, who were not in receipt of unemployment donation, were walking the streets without getting anything at all, except what their friends were willing to supply them with.
That is detestable, when these men have been paying into a fund of the Government every week by compulsion. They would not get employment unless they paid. It is deducted from their wages at the pay-box every week or fortnight, and when they are unemployed, through no fault of their own, because of some dispute in another part of the yard, and are out of work because of these disputes in some departments with which they have no connection, men working on some class of material that they do not handle, those men are unable to draw the benefits to which they have been paying for many years, without drawing, in many cases, a halfpenny of the benefit to which they have contributed all that time. That is unjust. My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) has
asked for a Committee, and that may be good so far as it goes. But what about the individuals in this dispute now prevailing in the engineering shops who are being locked out? What of the labourers who have had no word in the dispute, who had no ballot paper sent to them, and are not affected? They are on the street, and the reading of the umpire will be that they are on the street because of a trade dispute, and are not entitled to benefit.

Mr. J. JONES: They are being robbed.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Labourers' Union will be unable to pay the benefit according to the rules of the union, and they and their families will be without anything. Those people have to throw themselves on charity. They have to accept parochial relief, go to the boards of guardians, and apply for relief there. They are men and women who at any time in their lives would look upon it as bringing a stigma on their names to accept parish or board of guardians relief. The Government, by the operation of this Bill, are compelling these people to bring upon themselves what they consider to be disgrace. What are you going to do in the present dispute, with thousands of men on the streets at the present moment who have had no say in the dispute, and who are unable to draw Benefit because of this rule? Many of them are unable to draw trade union benefit because of the circumstances in which the unions have been placed all through the long period of unemployment that has been going on for the past year and a half. You are going to set up a committee. What is going to happen if that committee comes before you again with a decision that is not an agreed one—if they do not agree as to a formula? The right hon. Gentleman is remitting to this committee the task of common agreement on a formula or set of words that you can embody in the Bill. He has already told the House several times that he has placed this matter before employers and workers to try to arrive at an agreed set of words which he can accept. Why does he throw it on the employers and men? Did he put this Bill before them and ask them to agree on forms of words for each of its Clauses? He did not.
This is a Government Bill, drafted by Government draftsmen. The Government representatives tell us poor laymen when we put down Amendments that they will
accept Amendments which will strengthen the Bill, but that they will frame the set of words that will make them technically correct. We are not draftsmen to draft words to suit your legal experts. You have the finest draftsmen for drafting public or private Bills in the employment of the Government. Why, therefore, do you throw on the employers and the men the onus of putting forward a set of words you can accept? Why not tell the draftsman to draft a form of words which you, as a Government, will submit to employers and men for their acceptance. That is the commonsense way of looking at it, but it is evidently not the Government's way. They go round and round, circling all the time, and then at the end, when failure stares them in the face, they turn round and say it is the fault of the employers and trade unionists, that they cannot agree, and that, therefore, the Government cannot do anything in the matter. Bring before us a form of words drafted by your draftsman, and we will tell you if we will accept them or not. Then, and only then, will the blame of not having a suitable set of words incorporated in the Bill rest on the men and on the employers.
The Government have not said what they are going to do if the Committee does not agree. Are they going to throw it back again on the shoulders of the Committee? There are to be employers and men on the Committee, with certain officials of the Ministry of Labour. If the employers and the men disagree again, what is to happen? Are the representatives of the Ministry of Labour who will sit on the Committee to take the responsibility of framing the words, or will the Minister, if he is still Minister of Labour—I hope he will see promotion before then. I say so sincerely, so long, of course, as there is not a general election before then, and some of us are in his place. It will be easy then to draft a form of words, because we shall have control of the draftsmen, of whom he, evidently, is in fear, and is not going to instruct to draft this form of words. What is going to happen if the Minister of Labour is still in his present position? Is he coming to this House to tell it that this matter has been remitted to a Committee to find a set of words that will be acceptable to the Ministry of Labour, to the employers and to the men; that the men and the employers again have
failed to come to a common agreement, and that he, the Minister, as the third party, cannot do anything in the matter, and this obnoxious Clause must still remain in the Bill? Is that the position which the Ministry is going to take up? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the policy of "wait and see," since he no longer follows its spokesman. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to this House and ask for power, or will he take the responsibility upon himself and his colleagues in the Government to draft a set of words? I think that is the common-sense position. It is no use throwing upon us the responsibility.
As I have said already, the right hon. Gentleman did not invite us into a conference and did not invite the employers into a conference when drafting this Bill. That was done by the right hon. Gentleman's own draftsman in a Bill which was submitted to be debated and amended by this House. Why, then, should he not have had in this Bill a form of words drafted by his own draftsman, knowing, as the Minister does, the controversy that has arisen over this obnoxious Section, knowing of the disputes that have arisen in every part of the country, and knowing, as he certainly must do, the great amount of distress that has been caused in many homes because of the operation of the Section. I submit it is time we received some explanation in the matter. At the present time, in Glasgow and in various parts of the country, men who have been working short-time are being told that their unemployment donation for the week they were not working is suspended, and has been suspended for the past six weeks, because of the impending dispute and possible lock-out at that time in the engineering trades. Those men are to be taken before boards and referees and umpires, and in the meantime the unemployed donation is withheld from them.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Platting put a straightforward question to the Minister, which he has not answered. The right hon. Gentleman is standing by the Section in the Act. That is not a straightforward answer, especially when he has told this House that he is so dissatisfied with it that he is prepared to set up a Committee to try
to find a set of words to get over the difficulty. The Minister in charge of the Bill is not satisfied, and yet, when he is asked a question as to what he is prepared to do to meet cases of suffering at the present time, he shelters himself behind the old Act. That, surely, is not a straightforward way to meet a question. What is he going to do? Those cases are already on the street. Men have already been turned down by the Employment Exchanges up and down the country. They are told that they are not entitled to receive unemployment benefit. What is going to happen? Throw them upon the rates, tell them to go to the parish council in Scotland, or to the board of guardians in England? That is the only thing left open to those people. Although the Committee is satisfactory so far as it goes, I am not content with the Committee. I submit it is the duty of the Government to find a set of words, and not to put the responsibility upon the Members of this House or the employers of labour or trade unions. While I am prepared to accept the Committee as a means of getting over the difficulty, because of the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister in sheltering himself behind the Section in the Act, I shall press this to a Division to let him know we are dissatisfied with his statement.

Mr. HAYDAY: I want to second the appeal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), in order that we may be in a position to deal with the cases that will arise before the Committee about to be appointed reports. Upstairs, when the right hon. Gentleman gave the promise to set up a Committee, I felt that we were then getting somewhere near a point of definiteness that would remove the injustice that prevails under the present wording of the Act. I am not one who thinks—and I could not say it in face of my previous utterances and beliefs—that the Ministry should find words for every Act of Parliament, and that those words should be accepted by us. They have found certain words. Those words are before us for our criticism. We desire to see them altered. In my opinion, it is for this House to alter them, and bring them more into line with the condition of things. It is quite evident that the House, if it were left free, thoroughly
appreciates the difficulties and hardships which are imposed by the present wording of the Act.
What I rose particularly to say was this. The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have continually pleaded with us that, no matter how keen was the hardship of the cases cited, they had no power to grant benefit, because the facilities were not given them in the Act of Parliament. We suggest that the Minister himself, while the Committee is sitting inquiring into the matter, should accept responsibility, and this House should give him the responsibility of determining cases that might occur in the interval between the report and the inclusion of any findings of that Committee of Inquiry into some subsequent Act. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that. I feel that the responsibility is not so great that a Minister of the Crown could not cope with it. Whatever a Minister of the Crown does is bound to be subject to some criticism from some quarter or another. That is continually happening. But surely, at the risk of having criticism from disappointed applicants, it would be as well to put in the balance the approbation and approval of the many who would undoubtedly be admitted by the Minister if he had the power to admit them.
A case which brings it right home is, perhaps, the present engineering dispute. At the moment there are many thousands of engineers' labourers who have no dispute, who are thrown idle because of the dispute between the engineers and their employers. That is a case quite clear and definite, and I feel sure a Minister would most readily accept the responsibility of admitting them to benefit. I know of no clearer case. Take the position from the point of view of three groups who are no longer in dispute with their employers. If one group is in a position to stultify the industry, and thereby throw idle the other three groups, surely no one would pretend that the members of those three groups have no claim upon the fund. I do hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way clear to admit some responsibility, and agree to accept the suggestion that while the Committee is inquiring, or, if their report is delayed, and until such time as some permanent Section is inserted in the Act to cover these cases, he will ac-
cept the responsibility of determining them for himself.
There is one other point I would like to put. It seems to me to be not quite so difficult. It is that if the Committee is set up with something like decent rapidity, and its findings are agreed to within a very short space of time, could not the Minister then present a one-clause Bill? Facilities, I am sure, under those circumstances, would willingly be granted by the House. There is no earthly reason to wait until July, 1923, when the whole of these four or five Unemployment Acts that we have had will be put into the melting-pot and emerge into one permanent Unemployment Act. I see no reason why we should wait till that time, because the periods become less, the payments restricted, the hardships for ever increasing, and if the hardships are increasing for those admitted to benefit, how much greater is the hardship to those who can have no hope or prospect of ever being admitted to benefit so long as the Section remains as it is? I can well imagine that some other supplementary Bill or amending Bill may be necessary even before 1923. Is it not possible for some real step to be made? The promise is good, but you cannot live on promises. It is some hope, but it is a long distance to expect the victims of this Clause to go on hoping with a drab outlook until July, 1923. If large masses are thrown out on to the stones, they are not only the victims of other people's troubles, but they are the victims of a Government who, through their inertia, have not made any provision for them at all, and they become really sufferers of a double hardship. You say to them, "Hold out until July, 1923. If you can do that, then we will see what can be done to include in any further Measure some Clause that will give you a right we admit is yours, but which, under the present wording of the Act of Parliament, it is not possible to meet." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these points, further: First, that you get a quick and agreed Report from the Committee, so that you can prepare a one-clause Bill and ask for facilities to pass it through the House in order that its advantages may be embodied then, and accrue before July, 1923; and second, I follow the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes) in urging that you should accept re-
sponsibility in these matters, because I feel they are not so complicated as suggested by the Minister.

Mr. GRUNDY: One does not like to intervene for long, but I want to state definitely that I am altogether dissatisfied with the withdrawal of this suggested new Clause and the promise of a Committee to sit and report at some time, for we have not had any statement made as to what that time is likely to be. The Minister of Labour has known about this question for months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Years."] He has had ample opportunity in this Bill to make provision for this class of case. Let me cite a case or two. At several collieries in Yorkshire notice has been given to the workmen, not because they have refused to abide by any agreement contained in the monthly adjustment, but notices have been posted up that unless a reduction beyond that given by the accountants be accepted by certain classes of workmen the collieries would be closed down.
The people in these cases have gone before the umpire, who has turned the whole of the men down, stating it was a dispute. But I should like to point out that the employers want something more than an agreement. Look at the unfairness of the whole question. A reduction was asked for from what we call the "contract" men, that is, men working on piece. The strange and ironical aspect of the matter is this: that in some of these cases the men were earning decent wages and that was the reason given by the manager for asking for a reduction. The whole tendency of these men was in keeping with the view expressed in this House more than once of late to get that greater production that is urged, being paid for what they work. The contract men declined to agree to a reduction. The men were turned down by the umpire who termed the thing a trade dispute. Personally, I think it was wrong to term this affair a trade dispute, seeing that the employers were asking for something above the honest monthly adjustment. Still, seeing the men were out one would have thought that the men, not contract men, should have been entitled to unemployment benefit. The reduction asked for ranged from 40 to 10 per cent, and the men now out, the day-wage labour men, the men in the pit-hill, the banks-
men and the screen-men, are not parties to the dispute. They have no grievance. They are thrown out of employment because the contract men will not agree to suffer this injustice which they believe would be in the reduction.
I say, firstly, that the decision of the umpire was in favour of the employers, and was helping them to bring about indirect reductions contrary to the agreement. Secondly, after they had been turned down, at least those not affected by the dispute should have been entitled to unemployment benefit. This is at present the case in three or four collieries in Yorkshire. I first complain of the way the dispute has been defined. This was an injustice to the men, and, secondly, those unaffected should, as I say, have been entitled to unemployment benefit. When I was on the Committee that dealt with the last Bill, I mentioned a case like this to the Minister, but I received no answer. "Supposing," I said, "the engine-winders had a dispute, it would be limited to a very few men, but yet it would have the effect, if at a large colliery, of throwing some 1,500 to 2,000 men out of work. Would these men," I asked, "be entitled to the benefit?" I received no reply. Of course, we know now they would not be so entitled. We ought to force this Amendment and not be satisfied without a Division. It would not, perhaps, do to say that these men were being robbed. "Bobbed" is not a Parliamentary word. [An HON. MEMBER: "It may be true."] But, certainly, they have been unfairly dealt with, for they are not receiving that for which they have paid.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: My hon. Friends on the other side will be well advised not to push this question to a, Division. When we discussed this matter upstairs the Minister offered to set up an ad hoc Committee. There is an undoubted grievance. They and the employers must subscribe towards the scheme, which is a compulsory one, and many men may be involved in a trade dispute through no fault of their own; they may be taking no-active part in the dispute itself, are thrown out of work, and are denied unemployment benefit. That sort of grievance is calculated, if it continues, to bring our Parliamentary action into disrepute, and to tend to the increase of that social unsettlement which prevails to such a large
extent at the present time. It is not to the interest of the general community or to society as a whole that such a grievance should remain unremedied. But the Minister of Labour has said that if representatives of the employers and the workmen can get together and draw up a formula which he could accept, he would accept it. The Minister of Labour has admitted the grievance of my hon. Friends opposite, but they should not think that it is such a simple matter that it will be easily arranged. The whole problem bristles with difficulties. It would be an intolerable position if a Government Department under the unemployment scheme should grant benefit under which it might be supposed that the Government, acting through one of its Departments, was taking sides in an industrial quarrel, and by subscribing out-of-work benefit was helping to defeat one side or the other in a dispute. That is the point. The Government must be impartial in this matter and hold the balance even. Therefore, it is, in my view, extremely desirable that this valuable offer—because it is that—of the Minister to set up this ad hoc Committee should be accepted so that the Committee will get to work and report.
It is quite possible that a Committee of the sort might fail to make any recommendations. They may not agree. We are always faced with the possibility that the Committee may sit for a long time and not come to any final determination. But if so, I think it would be the duty of the Minister, after a time, to assume responsibility, to take the matter in his own hands, and bring forward a form of words which would put an end to this grevious injustice of men being thrown upon the street and deprived of benefit to which they have subscribed. No man can rest satisfied with an intolerable injustice of that sort. My hon. Friend opposite half-described it as "robbery," and I do not know that it needs a great stretch of the imagination to determine that it is so, for it is entirely depriving men of benefit for which they were compelled to subscribe.
It is a grave reflection upon an Act of Parliament, and upon our work here, that provision has not been made earlier to bring that grievance to an end. The Minister, as I say, may ultimately have to assume responsibility, but I do not think he should bring forward such an
Amendment in a temporary Measure such as that before us. I think my hon. Friends must be prepared to recognise that it will be 1923 before a remedy is found. In view of the decisions that have been given as to the terms of the original Act, I do not think the Minister can act on his own responsibility without having the force of law behind him, and that, I am afraid, could not be obtained much earlier than next year. The Committee to be set up will not be able to come to a quick decision, and when it docs, it might take some time to approve the form of words required. My hon. Friends opposite have underestimated the difficulties that face the Minister in this case. The whole matter will have to be very carefully thought out, else in remedying one side of the grievance you may put the weight of grievance on the other side. That must be avoided. We must have a statement of the case that will be fair to both sides, and that will have within its four corners the element of impartiality and of final settlement. Therefore I should strongly advise my hon. Friends to withdraw their Amendment, and to rely upon the offer of the Minister, and we may, I think, take it that if such a Committee as promised, reports, legislation will be brought forward at the earliest possible moment to give effect to their report.

Mr. SPENCER: The hon. Member has expressed the hope that this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division. I sincerely hope that there will be a Division upon it. In the case of the last Bill we had before us upstairs, the Minister of Labour made an offer to both sides that if we could find some distinct formula he was prepared to accept it. It is not enough to throw the onus upon either side of finding a formula of this kind. As has already been indicated in previous speeches, it is the duty of the Government to find a formula. The basis of our claim is well founded. We have sustained the hypothesis of this argument, not only to-night, but upon many previous occasions, namely, that every subscriber who is thrown out of employment through no fault of his own is entitled to the benefits of the unemployment fund. In so far as we have sought to achieve this principle, the right hon. Gentleman, more or less, is at least inclined to our point of view, but he has
constantly said that there are those fatal words in the principal Act, namely, "if the stoppage is due to a trade dispute." If it is due to a trade dispute, then the man is immediately disqualified.
So far as the principal Act is concerned, no discretionary powers are given either to the referees or to the Umpire. If the case is brought before the referees, and they themselves are fully impressed by the hardships of the case, they have no discretionary power to allow the applicant unemployment pay. Surely if three men are sitting as a Court of Referees, and they are at least impressed with the justice of the claim of the applicant, some discretionary power should be given to them. The principal Act invests them with no power whatever in this connection, and the same applies with regard to the Umpire, because he has no discretionary power. Very often, when you have an application for unemployment pay, one finds there is a written statement put in by the employer, who may attend the Court and he may not attend, and the written application of the employer under circumstances of this character is actually given more weight to than is ever given to the word or testimony of the applicant.
In a case of this character where men have made contributions I say that there should be one of two things. First, discretionary power might have been given long enough ago to either the Court of Referees or the Umpire; and secondly, that when any statement is made by an employer it should have no validity whatever unless he comes to the Court and allows the applicant to question his statement. There is no opportunity of cross-examination or of arriving at the real facts of the case. It is purely a case of misconduct, and the statement of the employers is taken as almost the final word. I submit that is not fair to the applicant. After the workmen had been and presented their case in one instance which came to my notice a written statement had been presented to the Umpire who heard their case, and then I am informed that he sent for the owners or managers of the works and heard their statement again without sending for the representatives of the workmen. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but I am informed that it is correct. If
that is so it is a gross injustice to the applicant, and whenever a case is to be heard, whether it is the case of an individual or a body of men, and a large number are involved, I maintain that the men have a right to be there to hear whatever evidence the owners have to submit because if they are not there to hear it they are in a position to rebut such evidence.
I also want to say that in regard to this question a very wide interpretation has been given to the term "trade dispute," and I wish to deal with that point. One illustration has already been given of this point, and I will give another. The first question I want to ask is what is the real definition and limitation of the term "trade dispute"? Suppose you have a trade dispute, or a lock-out, and the works are stopped and the time arrives when the lock-out notices are withdrawn and the parties have come to an arrangement in regard to terms and resume work, does the trade dispute end then? The Ministry of Labour, through their servants and even through the Umpire, have declared that the stoppage does not end when the parties come to terms, and while there exists any impediment to their return to work which is due to that stoppage, the men are treated as though the lock-out notices were continuing. This has happened in thousands of cases as far as the miners are concerned.
It would be bad enough if they were always to be made to suffer for actions of their own. That is to say if they gave notice themselves and stopped the pits and there were causes which prevented them from returning to work when the strike was ended and they were to suffer through the disaster, that would be bad enough; but when notice to stop work has been given by the employers who are seeking to impose their own terms, and the workmen are made to suffer on account of such stoppages, I say you are inflicting a gross injustice upon those men who are not primarily responsible. That has actually happened, and that is one of the applications of this term "trade dispute," and consequently there have been thousands of men in the mining world who, when there was a general resumption of work, were unable to draw out-of-work pay simply because they could not return to work owing to stoppages which
had taken place through that lock-out. I submit that is a gross injustice as far as the workmen are concerned, and we are seeking to avoid that injustice by putting in this Amendment, which would limit the application of those words. Unless some provision of this kind is put into the Bill it will follow that you will have other cases of this description where men, through no fault of their own, are either thrown out of work or the period of unemployment is lengthened, and under those circumstances the men would not be entitled to out-of-work pay.
I want to further illustrate that point. One of the statements made in this House, and constantly repeated, is that the men ought to observe and honour any agreement which has been arrived at between them and their employers. I subscribe to that doctrine. In the mining community we have a national agreement. The owners, through the Mining Association, have subscribed to that agreement, and the Miners' Federation have also subscribed to it. Besides this the Government have put their seal thereto as a sign and seal of this agreement being binding between the parties. But what has happened since? There are a number of cases where the owner has stated—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that point arises on this Clause, and it does not appear to me to be relevant, because we are now dealing with the definition of the terms under which men may receive unemployment pay.

Mr. SPENCER: That is precisely what I am dealing with. I am dealing with what is the interpretation of a trade dispute, and I am showing that if the interpretation put upon it now is the right one it is essential that we should have this Amendment carried. I may not be capable of putting my argument as cogently as it should be put, but really I am attempting to do the very thing which you, Mr. Speaker, are asking me to do, and I am giving this illustration to show that there is put upon these words such an interpretation that precludes men from obtaining unemployment pay. I am one of the members of the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and we are constantly having—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman takes such a long time to come to his point, and I cannot make out exactly whether he is in order or not.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. SPENCER: I do not want to transgress your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but the point is what is the true interpretation of the term "trade dispute"? I am trying to point out that there is put upon these words such an interpretation as precludes these men from getting benefit. I submit that under the circumstances these men certainly are entitled to out-of-work pay and if the principal Act precludes them from obtaining unemployment pay then it is high time the principal Act was amended to bring it into line with the principles of common justice.
There are other reasons why we should have this Amendment. In the first place, this is looked upon by myself as analogous to the reserves that an employer builds up his business. It is always considered sound business to do that. Surely it is sound for the workman to do the same thing. When the employer gets a strike he is entitled to take what he likes out of the reserve. I submit that if we get a lock-out we should be entitled to draw out of the reserves we have built up. I urged the Mover of the new Clause not to withdraw, but to force it to a Division.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I would like to make one more appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to let this new Clause go through, and let justice be done though the heavens fall; but if he cannot agree to that, then I would ask leave to withdraw the Clause, relying upon him to set up this Committee at the earliest possible moment, and relying upon his good intentions.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next two new Clauses on the Paper, standing in the names of the hon. Member for the Dud-deston Division (Mr. Hallas) and others (Outworkers), and in the names of the hon. Member for the Newton Division (Mr. R. Young) and others (Amendment of Section 17 (6), of principal Act) raise a charge, and therefore cannot be taken. That brings us to the first Amendment on Clause 1.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Amalgamation with unemployment benefit of grants payable; under 11 and 12 Geo. 5, c. 62, in respect of certain dependants.)

(1) Where a person entitled to benefit is a married man, whose wife is living with him or is being maintained wholly or mainly by him, or being a widower or an unmarried man has residing with him any female person for the purpose of having the care of his dependent children and is maintaining that person, or has and has had living with him as his wife any female person, or where the person entitled to benefit is a married woman who has a husband dependent on her, the weekly rate of benefit authorised by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, shall be increased by a sum of five shillings, and where the person so entitled has dependent children the weekly rate of benefit shall be increased by one shilling in respect of each such child:

Provided that the additional sum of five shillings shall not be payable in respect of a wife or female person who is in receipt of benefit (including benefit under any special scheme), or who is in regular wage-earning employment otherwise than as having the care of the dependent children of the person entitled to benefit, or is engaged in any occupation ordinarily carried on for profit.

(2) If any question arises as to whether any addition ought to be made to the weekly rate of benefit in respect of any wife or other female person, or any husband or any child, that question shall be decided by the Minister.

(3) Paragraph 6 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which limits the power of the Minister to prescribe rates and periods of benefit) shall have effect as though for the words from "the rate of benefit" to "for women" (where the last-mentioned words secondly occur), both inclusive, there were substituted the words "or reduce any of the rates of benefit for the time being in force by more than two shillings per week."

(4) This Section shall continue in operation so long as the rates of contribution fixed by this Act remain in force.

Mr. AMMON: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words "being a widower or an unmarried man."
This raises a case of obvious injustice. A married man who, for some reason or

other, is separated from his wife, and has the custody of the children, has no provision made whereby he can get assistance towards calling in some other woman to help him with his household. One particular case I wish to bring under review is a case that has been brought to my notice of a man granted separation from his wife without alimony and with the custody of his children. He got a woman to look after the children, but he was refused the allowance of 5s. a week for this woman. Another case that occurs to me is that in which after the separation the woman goes to live with another man. In that case an allowance could be given to the man in respect of the woman, although they are separated and she has not the custody of her children. Surely it is only equitable to grant an allowance to the man who is compelled to employ someone to look after his children.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The main object of the Amendment is to give a married man with children an allowance for a housekeeper or unmarried wife although his wife is alive but not living with him and not being maintained by him. The Unemployed Workers Dependants' Scheme was originally intended to operate for six months, but I have carried it forward for 14 months more, and I have asked to be allowed to carry it forward along the same general lines. Here is a very serious breach of those Regulations. Under that scheme no allowance for a housekeeper is payable to a married man when his wife is alive, and I cannot under any circumstances accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 159; Noes, 70.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[8.10 p.m.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Blair, Sir Reginald
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Atkey, A. R.
Biane, T. A.
Carr, W. Theodore


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Borwick, Major G. O.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm.,W.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)


Barnes. Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbais)
Breese, Major Charles E.
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender


Barnston, Major Harry
Broad, Thomas Tucker
Coats, Sir Stuart


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Brown, Major D. C.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Bruton, Sir James
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jones, G. W. H, (Stoke Newington)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianeily)
Rodger, A. K


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Falcon, Captain Michael
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Lindsay, William Arthur
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lloyd, George Butler
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lorden, John William
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lort-Williams, J.
Seddon, J. A.


Gardiner, James
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Gee, Captain Robert
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Macqulsten, F. A.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maddocks, Henry
Stevens, Marshall


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Gregory, Holman
Martin, A. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Sugden, W. H.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sutherland, Sir William


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Taylor, J.


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neal, Arthur
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Waddington, R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Waring, Major Walter


Hlider, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Parker, James
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Pearce, Sir William
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Winterton, Earl


Hudson, R. M.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wise, Frederick


Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wootcock, William James U.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pratt, John William
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, G. T.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Jameson, John Gordon
Randies, Sir John Scurrah



Jesson, C.
Renwick, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John


Ammon, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.


Banton, George
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertiliery)
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hancock, John George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Henderson, Rt, Hon. A. (Widnes)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hogge, James Myies
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Casey, T. W.
Irving, Dan
Tillett, Benjamin


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Waterson, A. E.


Davies. Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kiley, James Daniel
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Lawson, John James
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Finney, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Foot, Isaac
Myers. Thomas
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Forrest, Walter
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Galbraith, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Gillis, William
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Kennedy and Mr. W. Smith.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "dependent children" ["having the care of his dependent children"], and to j insert instead thereof the word "home."
The effect of this would be that where a widower or unmarried man has residing: with him a female person for the purpose of having the care of his home, he would
be able to claim 5s. in respect of her. I have brought this forward to-day because I have had a letter from the North of England describing a case in which this Clause, as it stands, inflicts not only a great injustice on the individual, but a greater injury on public morals. A widower whose children are just over 16 has living with him a housekeeper, and
applies for the 5s. in respect of her, but he is told that he cannot have it, and it is added that if this woman were living with him as his wife he could have it, but because she is living in a respectable way as his housekeeper, he cannot have it. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, and indeed everyone who hears that case, will consider it discloses a monstrous state of affairs. I say nothing with regard to the case of a woman living with a, man as his wife getting the 5s. One cannot inquire whether or not they are legally married, but I do protest at the idea of a couple living together in that way being put into a superior position to the man who has a respectable housekeeper looking after his home and children, although they may not be technically dependent children, because they are just over 16. If the woman were living with the man as his sham wife, no question would be asked whether there were any children at all, or whether she is looking after the house or anything else. If she is living with him as his wife she is entitled to the 5s.
If the words "dependent children" are left out and the unemployed man is given a right to claim 5s. in respect of a woman who is residing with him for the purpose of having the care of his home it will remove a great anomaly, it will do away with a great injustice to many respectable people, and it will prevent injury to public morals. Take the case of two couples living side by side, one with no children at all, just a man and a woman passing as his wife, although she is not his wife. She gets the 5s. in that case. Next door to them there may be a man who is a widower with several children all over 16 years of age whom he is preparing, it may be with great difficulty, for some higher station in life. He has a respectable woman to keep house for him and to look after his children. He applies for the 5s. in respect of her and is told he cannot have it, although he could have it if the woman were living with him as his wife. Surely no further words are needed to show the monstrous state of law thus created. I have worded my Amendment very carefully so as to avoid letting in any woman who might happen to be living in the house. It will meet the case of the genuine housekeeper, and
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept the Amendment and thereby remove a very great blot from the Bill, a blot which, I am sure, he would be the last man to desire to exist. It will be very much resented up and down the country if this blot is not remedied before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The whole object of this provision is to ensure that assistance shall be given in cases where there is housekeeper to look after the children, and if this grant of 5s. is to be made in every case where there are no children but where the woman is there to look after the home, I suggest it will be going far beyond the intentions of the Act. This is an Insurance Act. I have strained things considerably already, but to provide that the 5s. shall be paid in all cases where there is a woman looking after a home, and where there are no children, is altogether foreign to the object of the Bill. It could not be described as coming within the purview of even the shadow of an Insurance Act. The hon. Member has supported this Amendment by stating a case which someone has communicated to him, and on the strength of that communication he asks us to make this very great alteration in the law. On the strength of such a representation, I do not think we would be justified in altering the whole scope and character of this Bill, and in ruling out its one main purpose, which is to do something for the children. The Amendment carries the Bill much too far, and I cannot, under any circumstances, accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) after the word "person" ["any female person"] to insert the words "or has and has had living with him any adult relative dependent upon him."
I shall speak quite briefly to this Amendment as I am encouraged to be brief by the reception which other Amendments of a similar character have had from the right hon. Gentleman. I am not disposed to waste the time of the House or my own time in putting arguments to a Minister who has made up his mind, or to empty Government benches. In regard
to the last Amendment, I know that scores of hon. Members took part in the Division without knowing anything at all about the arguments which had been presented.

Dr. MACNAMARA: That never happens to my hon. Friend.

Mr. KENNEDY: I take care to inform myself on matters on which I record a vote, and I think I may say the same on behalf of the majority of Members on this side of the House. I will content myself with bringing to the notice of the Minister the substance of the Amendment, from the principle of which I think he will have some difficulty in escaping. The Act, as it now stands, brings within the scope of benefit a widower or an unmarried man if he has residing with him any female person for the purpose of taking care of his dependent children, or if he has and has had living with him as his wife any female person. If an unmarried man who has a female person living with him as his wife can get these benefits—I am not discussing the morals of the situation; that is not necessary—surely it is reason able to ask that an unmarried man whose aged mother, say, is residing with him, or whose father is residing with him—

Dr. MACNAMARA: Are there children?

Mr. KENNEDY: There may be, but I am speaking of the unmarried man whose father, say, is aged, and who has the responsibility of maintaining him. Surely it is reasonable that that unmarried man should get the same benefit as is extended to an unmarried man in the circumstances I have previously described. That is why I am asking for the acceptance of this Amendment.

Mr. G. BARKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the scope of this Clause should be enlarged. It seems to me too restricted, and to inflict unnecessary hardship upon many deserving persons. Take the case of a man who, when he is in employment, may be maintaining an infirm relative, perhaps a sister, who may be considerably older than himself. If he becomes unemployed, his means of supporting her are cut off, but he is under the same moral obligation to endeavour to support his sister as he would be to support any
other member of his family. He finds himself, however, unable to do so because there has been no provision made for the sister to get the 5s. in case he is thrown out of employment. That would apply to other relatives besides a sister. It would apply to any relative that the unemployed man may have been maintaining while in full employment, and I am certain that the Minister cannot find any real, substantial reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. I know, from the experience that I have had with him, that he is very sympathetic in cases that are brought before him, and that he has, on one particular occasion at any rate, used his powers in a most beneficent way. I would appeal to him now to allow this Amendment to go through. If it does not go through, it means that, when this Bill becomes law, it will inflict great hardship on many deserving working men. There are many men amongst the working classes who are relieving the State of obligations by the way in which they maintain their dependent and infirm relatives, who have no legal but have strong humanitarian claims upon their support. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend who seconded this Amendment said that, if the Bill stands as it is, it is going to inflict very great hardship. It is going to carry on, for 20 months in all, what was originally designed for six months, that is to say, the scheme of the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Act. That may not, and I know it did not, satisfy my hon. Friends opposite. They said so. But during the winter it has had a very timely effect upon poor people so far as it has gone, and there is no infliction of any new injustice in carrying on the scheme of that Act. We have made in that Act a provision, now merged in the present Measure, for 5s. a week for a wife or housekeeper looking after children, and 1s. a week for each child. This Amendment will enlarge very considerably the class of persons who might claim the 5s. My hon. Friend's idea was that a single man might claim it, but as it is drawn the 5s. would be confined to an adult relative in cases in which the applicant is a widower or an unmarried man. That is not my hon. Friend's intention. He would say that it should be applicable in every case, as I gathered from his speech. Of course, he realises that the 5s.
is only paid once. I do not want to make more of this than there is in it. There would not be several sums of 5s., but it would largely widen the scope, particularly if applied to single men, as my hon. Friend intends—and he may be right, though I do not think so myself. It very considerably widens the number of persons who might say they are entitled to the 5s. According to a rough calculation, I think I am safe in saying that in that case, because of the great variety of adult relatives, of both sexes, who might claim this 5s., the additional charge would certainly be several millions. Now this is not a fund—I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so—for furnishing a compassionate grant; it is an insurance fund, and I have strained it in a way in which it has never been strained before. It will come all right. The vast amount of uncovenanted benefit paid to-day will be all right when we get back to more profitable times. The people will pay, and I shall make up the debt, which is already about £15,500,000, and will, before I have finished with it, be very nearly £30,000,000. They will pay, the Measure will then be safe for the future, and I hope that in some form it will be a permanent part of our social machinery. This is a sort of Amendment which is carrying the strain upon the machine further than is justified, and I do beg my hon. Friends to be satisfied with the Measure as it has worked during the winter, and not here and now to try to extend it in the way proposed.

Mr. W. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has just drawn the attention of the House to the fact that this is an insurance Measure, and not a Measure which enables charitable grants to be made. I do not think it is the intention of the Amendment, and certainly it is not the intention of those who moved it, to extend this insurance scheme on the lines of a charity Measure, but it is because it is an insurance Measure, and also because it is an Unemployed Workers' Dependants Measure, that we submit this Amendment. I can quite see, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that there might be some difficulty in accepting this Amendment in its present wording. Could he not see his way clear to accept it if the word "solely" was put before the word "dependent"? That
would meet us on this side, and at the same time it would not add to the burden to any considerable extent. Some of the cases which would be affected by an Amendment of this description would be amongst the most deserving. It might be argued, if the word was not inserted, that a single man living at home with his mother might have a brother who might be earning money, and it might be considered unfair to extend the benefit to him, although if it is an insurance Measure it might be argued that he would be entitled to it. But we desire to meet the case of a man who has a home of his own, or, perhaps, living with a relative. They have a home of their own, but are dependent upon him for their livelihood. With the insertion of this word there could be no wide interpretation placed upon the Clause which would add materially to the expense, and at the same time it would enable us to meet really hard cases which could be justified even under the terms of an insurance Measure.

Mr. C. WHITE: I should like to support the Amendment, especially with the insertion of the word '"solely." We all know dozens of cases where a boy is the sole support of his widowed mother. It is not a bit of good unless the Minister accepts this, because the empty Benches across there will very soon be filled, or at any rate hon Members will come out from the subterranean passages and crowd into the Lobby having heard not one word of this debate. The Minister says this is no new-injustice. That is no answer to the case at all.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I made that comment because the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. G. Barker) rather put it as if I was imposing an injustice.

Mr. G. BARKER: I said unintentionally, at any rate.

Mr. WHITE: Is there anyone more worthy of consideration than the widowed mother of a boy, such as many of us here know? Under this Bill the mother gets nothing. A man can live in adultery with a woman and the woman can get 5s. a week. If a man or boy has a widowed mother solely dependent on him she gets nothing at all. Surely this is a matter which must receive consideration from an intensely human Minister such as the Minister of Labour. I hope he will give it further consideration after the suggestion
of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. W. Smith), and with the word "solely" inserted I am certain it will remedy a great injustice and give consideration to that most worthy of all women and the most worthy of all young men who are devoting their lives to the support of a widowed mother who is unable to help herself. I hope the Minister even now will accept the suggestion and let the Amendment go forward. If he

does not we shall divide, although I know the registering machine will come up and defeat us. Let me beg of the right hon. Gentleman, as a man who knows the homes of the people as well as anyone in the House, to give that intense human sympathy which I know he has to a deserving case such as this.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 156.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[8,42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Robertson, John


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Rose, Frank H.


Banton, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Grundy, T. W.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hancock, John George
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Thomas. Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Hogge, James Myles
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Casey, T. W.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Tillett, Benjamin


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Irving, Dan
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbrdge)


Foot, Isaac
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Forrest, Walter
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Galbraith, Samuel
Reel, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gillis, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. W. Smith and Mr. Kennedy.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianeily)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Fell, Sir Arthur
Kidd, James


Atkey, a. R.
Forestier-Walker, L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lindsay, William Arthur


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Gardiner, James
Lloyd, George Butier


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gee, Captain Robert
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Barnston, Major Harry
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lorden, John William


Sell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Lort-Williams, J.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.


Biane, T. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Gregory, Holman
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Macquisten, F. A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Maddocks, Henry


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Marks, Sir George Croydon


Brown, Major D. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Martin, A. E.


Bruton, Sir James
Harms worth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Mitchell, Sir William Lane


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A,
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Butcher, Sir John George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Neal, Arthur


Carr, W. Theodore
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hood, Sir Joseph
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spenoer
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Hudson, R. M.
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hurd, Percy A.
Parker, James


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pearce, Sir William


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Jameson, John Gordon
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jesson, C.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Dawson, Sir Philip
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Pratt, John William


Doyle, N. Grattan
Johnstone, Joseph
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Renwick, Sir George
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Wallace, J.


Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Waring, Major Walter


Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Smith, Sir Malcolm (Orkney)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Stanton, Charles Butt
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Rodger, A. K.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Roundeli, Colonel R. F.
Stevens, Marshall
Williams, Lt.-Col. sir R. (Banbury)


Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sugden, W. H.
Wise, Frederick


Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Sutherland, Sir William
Woolcock, William James U.


Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave O.
Taylor, J.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)



Seddon, J. A.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Waddington, R.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.




Dudley Ward.

Mr. KENNEDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "five" ["five shillings"], and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."
This Amendment was debated fully in Committee, and defeated there, and we bring it forward now in order that the House may express an opinion upon it. The proposal is to increase dependants' allowances to 10s. It may save time if I anticipate the objections of the Minister of Labour, so that the House may see what they amount to. We were told that the adoption of this Amendment would break the machine, would involve increased contributions, and exhaust the resources now at the disposal of the Ministry of Labour in connection with insurance schemes. This Bill, and the whole insurance system, at this moment, are not on a sound insurance basis, and in order to meet the exceptional circumstances in which we are living to-day exceptional measures have to be taken. I should, myself, be ready to see the Minister of Labour—and in saying this I think I express the general feeling throughout the country—exhaust his present financial resources and exceed the borrowing powers which he now has, rather than see the misery and suffering that are involved in a continuance of the present policy. The fact is that the allowance for dependants is supplemented greatly by the guardians, and I move this Amendment, I admit frankly, in order to put on the national exchequer a heavier burden than it is bearing at present, so as to relieve the local authorities from a burden which they should not be called on to bear, because this matter of unemployment is a national problem, and should be treated as such, and this Amendment carries us one small step towards the establishment of that principle.

Mr. W. SMITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Amendment is to increase the weekly allowance to a housekeeper or wife as the case may be from 5s. to 10s. Last November, when we introduced this unemployed workers dependants' allowance we discussed the question of fixing the amount at something beyond 5s., and we also discussed this Amendment upstairs. I would ask my hon. Friends to consider what I have been trying to do. I am first carrying on a provision, which was first intended for six months, but which has been of such value, small as it is, that it has been extended another 14 months. The Unemployment Insurance Act provided, since the slump came upon us in September, 1920, for 52 weeks' benefit. I am making it find more now to the end of October, and more from the end of October up to June, 1923, and for a great many people who have not paid any contributions at all, and a great many more who paid nothing like the number of contributions which would be required as a condition precedent under any permanent insurance scheme. I am not blaming them for that, because they have not been in employment, and they could not find the contributions. But that is a big strain upon what is called an insurance scheme. Since the slump came upon us in the autumn of 1920 down to the present time, we have paid out under the Insurance Act to unemployed workers and dependants grants amounting to £80,000,000, and from now to June, 1923, we shall pay another £60,000,000.
When we remember that very many of the recipients have paid no contributions, and very many more have paid very few, I think my hon. Friend is not entitled to ask that we should increase the amount to 10s. I am finding now for a man with a wife and two children 22s. a week, not out relief, not poor relief, but under an insurance scheme which, so far as it goes, does enable hundreds of thousands of
them to retain their self-respect. I am very glad to be able to do it. The amount which I had in my Estimates for this fund was first some £8,000,000 odd. At one time I thought I might have to reduce the ordinary unemployment benefit. I am very glad I was relieved of that necessity and that more money was found. The charge which will come in course of payment between now and the end of this emergency scheme, that is in June, 1923, is not something over £8,000,000 but £14,700,000. It has taxed my ingenuity to devise this scheme and has taxed the Chancellor of the Exchequer's resources a great deal more than my ingenuity. This proposal has increased the charge by nearly £7,000,000. I could exhaust my borrowing powers more quickly, but in a very short time, the fund would become bankrupt. On the whole, having regard to our straitened national finances, much as one would like to do more, we cannot do more. I do not pretend that this is sufficient for maintenance, but there is nothing like it in any other country in the world and nothing like it has ever been attempted before in this country. To increase the charge by £7,000,000 is out of the question.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hope hon. Members who approve of the Amendment will force it to a Division. The Minister has told us that we are doing better in this country towards our unemployed than any other country. These payments to the unemployed have at any

rate kept our people from turmoil. If any hon. Member from this country went, for illustration, to New York, where there is no unemployment benefit paid, and carried money in his pocket, it is very doubtful if he could pass through some of the streets without being molested. The payments made in this country to our unemployed are a guarantee against turmoil here. If we increase the amount paid to the wife, as the Amendment suggests, I am sure our people would be less discontented than they are. When we began paying this 5s. in respect of a wife our people had a little money set aside from the good days of the past, but that has all gone, and they are now down to rock bottom. Some of them are in abject poverty. It is grossly unfair that local authorities should be called upon to pay money out of local rates, and so relieve the Government of an obvious duty. This unemployment is definitely a national problem, and it ought to be dealt with as such. The Minister of Labour has told us several times that this is an insurance scheme. It is nothing of the kind. The 5s. we are now discussing is not in the nature of an insurance payment at all. Insurance means that everybody who contributes to a scheme will be entitled to receive something from that scheme. This scheme falls far short of that.

Question put, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 62.

Division No. 84.]
AYES.
[9.2 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Coats, Sir Stuart
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Atkey, A. R.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson. J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barnston, Major Harry
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hood, Sir Joseph


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C H. (Devizes)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hudson, R. M.


Blane, T. A.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Borwick, Major G. O.
Forrest, Walter
Hurd, Percy A.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jameson, John Gordon


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Ganzonl, Sir John
Jesson, C.


Brown, Major D. C.
Gardiner, James
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Bruton, Sir James
Gee, Captain Robert
Johnson, Sir Stanley


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Kidd, James


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Carr, W. Theodore
Gregory, Holman
Lloyd, George Butler


Casey, T. W.
Guest, Capt Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Lorden, John William


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Lort-Williams, J.


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Stevens, Marshall


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Strauss, Edward Anthony


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Pratt, John William
Sugden, W. H.


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Randies, Sir John Scurrah
Sutherland, Sir William


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Taylor, J.


Macquisten, F. A.
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Maddocks, Henry
Renwick, Sir George
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Waddington, R.


Morden, Col. W. Grant
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Waring, Major Walter


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Rodger, A. K.
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Neal, Arthur
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanders. Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Wise, Frederick


Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Woolcock, William James U.


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)



Parker, James
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pearce, Sir William
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Stanton, Charles Butt
Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Robertson, John


Amnion, Charles George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Rose, Frank H.


Banton, George
Grundy, T. W.
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guest, J. (York, W.R., Hemsworth)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hancock, John George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Hogge, James Myles
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Irving, Dan
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Tillett, Benjamin


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Lawson, John James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Finney, Samuel
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Foot, Isaac
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Galbraith, Samuel
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gillis, William
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Goff, Sir R. Park
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. W. Smith.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "one shilling" ["the weekly rate of benefit shall be increased by one shilling in respect of each such child"], and to insert instead thereof the words "two shillings."
This is an Amendment which has been before the Committee and also before this House several times. I hope that as the persistent dropping of water wears away stone, so eventually some impression may be made by our efforts on the rugged front of the benches opposite and that the Minister's kindness of heart and good nature may be able to impose themselves on those around him. One feels certain that if one had only the Minister to deal with there would be no difficulty on this particular Amendment. His experience of school life and his knowledge of and sympathy with the child are such that it would be impossible for him personally to reject an appeal like this. I do not, however, wish to dwell particularly on the humane and sympathetic side, because I
am sure the House is at one on that score, but with the more practical side of the question. The Minister, when he was resisting this Amendment in Committee, said this was an insurance scheme and not a compassionate allowance, and that to make the grant of £2,000,000—which he estimates would be necessary to carry out this Amendment—would bankrupt this insurance scheme. I ask him to consider whether this part of the Measure, dealing with dependants, is really an insurance scheme. Reference has already been made to the fact that an insurance scheme is something built up by a series of contributions from people who are going to share in the benefits of that scheme. This fails to answer that test on two counts. In the first place the scheme has not been built up in this way. You are mortgaging the future; you are relying upon reserves which may accumulate in the future, to pay this allowance, and therefore it cannot be considered really as a matter of insurance.

Dr. MACNAMARA: What is it?

Mr. THOMSON: It is a special grant to meet an emergency resulting from the War. The unemployment from which we are suffering is national unemployment, and is directly due to the War from which we recently emerged. No insurance scheme as such could stand the strain which is being put upon us. We had to undertake special measures, many of them of a non-financial nature, during the period of the War, and this is a continuation of those schemes. In the second place, this is not really an insurance scheme, because many of those who do contribute towards it cannot participate in the benefits accruing from it. The contributions paid by many young girls and boys are used for these dependants' allowances, and to the extent that the fund is being used for that purpose, this is not a real insurance scheme. It is really of the nature of a compassionate allowance, and one that can be justified on sound financial grounds. Last Session the Prime Minister referred to unemployment and to the various schemes of the Government to meet it, and he referred to the question as being national and not local. He went back into history and pointed out that after the Napoleonic wars the country made the mistake of leaving these matters to each district to settle locally, and he mentioned the tremendous difficulty which the country got into as a consequence of the distress which was rampant. He said we were wiser to-day, and were dealing with it on national lines. To a certain extent, the Government are dealing with it on national lines. It is all a question of degree, but to a certain extent it is being dealt with nationally. Why not deal with it thoroughly and properly on national lines?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir E. Cornwall): The hon. Member is now discussing the whole scope of, the Bill rather than the present Amendment.

Mr. THOMSON: I am sorry. In trying to combat the argument used by the Minister upstairs that this was purely an insurance scheme I have been led astray, but I will come back to the particular point involved. I wish to stress one reason why this grant should be raised from 1s. to 2s. If you do not give the increased grant under this Bill, the children and their parents will have to get the money from the guardians. It
all comes out of the public purse whether it be the national purse or the local purse. If by increasing the grant from 1s. to 2s. you are enabling many thousands of people to keep off the guardians you are really effecting an economy. If they went to the guardians they would get 25s. or 30s. more than they are getting now, but a great many of them, for the sake of self-respect and because they are anxious to have nothing to do with Poor Law relief, will manage with the one or two extra shillings suggested in the Amendment instead of taking the larger amount which, otherwise, you are forcing them to have. Who could wait at home and see children starving and hesitate to sacrifice pride and self-respect by going to the guardians? It is therefore a real economy to make this extra grant, even though it may mean £2,000,000 more from the insurance fund, because you will save the drawing of many millions more from the guardians and from that branch of the public finances which is locally collected.
I submit that since this Measure was before the House last time, there have been at least two new factors. Private savings have been exhausted, and trade union benefits have been exhausted, and, what is more, the springs of private charity have been largely exhausted, so that it becomes more difficult every day for those who get the 15s. or the 5s. to help to maintain their families. The second point, which I think is material, is this: The Minister has put in a Clause which requires that the guardians shall take into account everything that is received as unemployment benefit, whereas before they did not take into account anything under 10s. Because of that Amendment, it is incumbent on this House to see that the grant which is given is adequate. No one would suggest for a moment that 1s. a head is an adequate sum to meet the occasion. The Minister himself does not, but he said, "What can I do? My funds are depleted." Yet, by a new Clause which he carried earlier on, he allocated, for the purposes of administration, a large sum of money which up to the present has gone to swell the ordinary funds. By the Act of a year ago, or the year before, he took credit for the £22,000,000, or thereabouts, which had been built up in the reserve. That sum, I think, should have been a charge on the national funds, and, therefore, it is only right that they should restore
part of that in the way which is suggested. Already the Government has recognised, by making special grants under its Education Act to necessitous areas, that this special burden on the rates is a matter which should be relieved from the central authority, and I stress that point, that this is a national charge, and that the State as a whole should help those districts which are in the most deplorable condition, with rates mounting up to 20s. and 30s. in the pound, because they have to carry a burden which might be met by this Bill. In other districts throughout the country, where they have not the industrial trouble, the local rates are 10s., or even less, in the pound, and it is unfair, when you are dealing with a problem, which is essentially national and is a result of the War, that one district should have to bear double or treble the burden that another is doing. On those grounds, I move that the 1s. should be increased to 2s.

Colonel P.WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would like to agree with my hon. colleague the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) when he said that this allowance of 1s. is totally inadequate in the present circumstances. There might have been some defence for it on the original Bill, but poverty has so struck into the lives of the working classes that to-day, if the Minister adheres to this allowance of 1s., the child life of this nation will be neglected and is bound to suffer. I know the cry of economy, but there are certain things that you cannot economise on, both with regard to the individual and with regard to the nation as a whole. A man may economise on what he smokes and, to a certain extent, on what he eats and drinks, but if he attempts to economise on breathing he dies. A nation is the same. It may economise on a good many things, but if it economises on the care of its child life it dies, because the child life is the source from which the nation of future years derives its vigour, and therefore I beg my right hon. Friend to give this matter his very careful reconsideration. It will, I believe, cost him about £1,750,000. I think he estimated that in the 15 months it would cost him £2,400,000, so that in the 12 months it would cost somewhere about £1,750,000, and that is not very
much more than we voted in that new Clause of his for the administrative expenses of this fund. I beg of him not to go down to history as the Minister who passed that economy on the same night as he refused to increase the allowance to children, and if he cannot increase it by Is., I beg of him to try and increase it by 6d.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Of course, my two hon. Friends have made very powerful appeals. The case of the child is always a pathetic one, which appeals to all of us, and I am sure the Amendment was not pressed on the ground of any greater humanity possessed by those who moved it as contrasted with those who, like myself, have the rather ungracious task of opposing it. There is one thing my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson) said, which I think I should not let pass. It would not be fair. He said that if we only had the Minister to deal with, there would be no trouble in getting the Amendment accepted; but I cannot let that pass, for, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it would not be fair for me to make it seem that if I had my way I would do more than others would do. I stand by this, and there it is. I cannot do more, and I take all the responsibility. The House is familiar with the discussions we had last November, and it is quite true that although on the one hand things are more acute, and slender resources are more exhausted, on the other hand, for what it is worth, since the day when we discussed this last November, the cost-of-living index figure has fallen 17 points. I do not say that that balances the argument put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Colonel P. Williams). The arguments which have been urged were largely covered by the previous Amendment, to increase the wife's allowance, but I should like to say this, that I think this 1s. allowance is very often put rather unfairly. It is said, for instance, that I am to go down to history—I do not mind—as the man who would not give the children more than Is. That really is not quite fair—to talk, as is so often done, of the meanness of 1s. a week to the children. I think an hon. Friend opposite worked it out at so many farthings a day, but that is not quite fair. What are the facts? No hon. Member
opposite will deny them. Here we have an Insurance Act which was finding 15s. a week benefit. Here comes the winter and the long continued depression, the exhaustion of personal resources and of trade union out-of-work pay; we say that, with all our straitened finances, we must see if we can make some further addition to the 15s. in respect of the wives and children, and to that 15s. we add 5s. for the wife and 1s. for the little children. That is to say, a man with a wife and two children instead of 15s. will get 22s. Is not that the fair way to put it?

Mr. CLYNES: Is it not a fact that the 5s. so added is the 5s. previously taken off?

Dr. MACNAMARA: My contention is that it is not quite fair to say"a shilling a week for the children"; it is an addition to the 15s. unemployment benefit, i.e., 5s. for the wife and 1s. for each of the little children. I have always protested against the use of the word "dole." The word irritates me beyond measure when it is used in relation to a payment of which the people find four-fifths themselves. I say it is not fair to say "a shilling a week for the children." I would rather say, "Here is unemployment benefit of 15s., to which this addition was made for six months, i.e., 5s. for the wife and 1s. for each of the little children." I would add this, that although our undertaking was to do it for six months, in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, and notwithstanding the emptiness of our Exchequer, we said we must play our part and carry it on for 14 months more. If we could have done more, I should have been very glad. I think we have done something to assist so many of these poor people, and if I do not argue the matter further, it is not that I have not plenty of arguments, but that I do not want to irritate my hon. Friends. All I will say is that, much as I regret it, I am bound to oppose this Amendment.

Mr. CAIRNS: In connection with this matter, I wish to take one typical case. I happened to be an enumerator during the Census, and in the district I went round every family had eight or ten children. We will take eight, the father and the mother and eight children. That gives 28s. for ten persons, less than 3s. a week each. It seems to me it is like a
penalty on the big family. It is indirectly teaching the doctrine of Malthusianism. It is not fair. There has been a difference of opinion as to what we should call this Bill. Some say that we should call it an Insuraince Bill. I would call it an Insulting Bill to the Working Men of this Country. When you wanted us to fight we fought, but when we cannot get work you will not help us to live. The bigger the family, the more the penalty, and you allow 1s. a week. Many men have dogs that cost more than that. We are men with red blood. Perhaps a time will come when we have more power.

Mr. J. JONES: It will be blue-blood then.

Mr. CAIRNS: I mean what I say. I am known as a fighting man, and if I fight I want to fight for the children. We are often asked to support a certain Bill before this House in the interests of animals that cannot defend themselves. Our children cannot defend themselves. I see here the sardonic smiles on the faces of the millionaires, sarcastic smiles, but those who laugh last laugh best, and we will laugh the last. I have a good deal of sympathy with the Minister. He has his marching orders from those who are not here. While we have been discussing this question to-night those benches opposite have been nearly empty, and the only occupants have been the Minister himself and one or two others on the Front Bench. If it had been a Debate to discuss the principles of the men who composed the Cabinet, or if there had been money in it, the House would have been full. Somebody asked the other day for £4,000,000 and got £57,000,000. I hope—nay, I dare not hope; I have no hope; I have lost hope in that side; but I have very great pleasure in supporting the mover and seconder of this Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: I have had the advantage of reading an hour or two ago a Debate which took place in this House in November of last year, and I rise to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) on the ground that if this Bill is to do anything to assist the children, that assistance must be adequate. To offer 1s. is no offer at all, and I would very much rather that the Bill were held up in respect of the children until some
reasonable offer was made, an offer that would be considered reasonable in every home in the land where children have to be maintained. I think it is altogether unfair to refuse this gift simply on the ground of the depleted Exchequer. The comparison must not be made with the depleted Exchequer, but with the expenditure the community makes in every other direction. We were only told to-day, in answer to a question, that in one direction no less than £500,000 has been spent as a contribution to one family that in itself has done nothing to deserve that amount from the State. The only way in which we can deal adequately in this matter is to realise what the resources of the State are, and to see that those resources are dealt out to those who have the first need. We are all taught, surely, in every other walk of life that children have the first claim. Here, apparently, they are having the last consideration. It will not meet the case to say that money has been spent in other directions, on adventures abroad, in this land, and other lands, and that now we have not anything with which to meet the children's claims.
We have, if necessary, to reorganise our whole finance rather that there should be on this generation the rather shameful condemnation that the children came in for the last consideration. One shilling a week is the suggestion that is being made. I understand that the Minister in charge of the Bill rather resented the calculation in facthings, but how else can we calculate? The fact is that it amounts to not quite seven farthings per day to each child. I am quite sure that when the Debate took place in this House in November of last year the greatest possible resentment was aroused throughout the country, and if we should confirm the decision then arrived at I believe that resentment will be exacerbated and intensified. I would reinforce the argument of the Mover of the Amendment that this inevitably leaves the heavier burden on the guardians throughout the country who in many places are at their wits' ends and are beseiged by angry men, men who are angry at their own distress and still more angry at the distress of their children. It is better that it should be borne by the national funds rather than by money raised by the guardians, which means that we ask in many
cases the very poorest to help the poor, and we put an additional burden on just those parts of the community most distressed by unemployment. For these reasons I support the Amendment.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: I rather regret the tone which was taken by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) when he said—I have no doubt quite honestly—that there were some sections of this House which had no sympathy with the children.

Mr. T. THOMSON rose—

Sir R. NEWMAN: I apologise. It was the hon. Member who followed.

Colonel P. WILLIAMS: I made no such statement.

Mr. CAIRNS: I said it.

Sir R. NEWMAN: I apologise to the House for not knowing that the hon. Member represents Morpeth, but I think he is wrong. I am quite sure there is no section of this House which has not sympathy with the children. At the same time, I can say at once that it is my intention to vote for the Amendment, and I shall do so, not only on the ground of humanity, but on that of economy. If a man and a woman are genuinely out of employment, I do not see how they can keep themselves and one child on 21s. a week. I think 2s. in such a case is low enough, but I think 1s. is quite inadequate. As has been pointed out, a great number of these parents will have to go to boards of guardians, which will really mean that the money in relief will come out of the pockets of the ratepayers rather than the taxpayers, and when people say it does not matter whether it comes out of the pockets of the ratepayers or the taxpayers, I would point out there is a great difference, because, after all, the money of the taxpayers is derived from all over the country, whereas in every locality a certain number are not ratepayers at all, and it falls more heavily on some than on others. There is no doubt whatever that proper provision for the children is a national concern, and therefore the arguments on these grounds are very strongly in favour of the Amendment. There is another point. Whether we think very much of it or not, the sentiment is strong on the part of very many parents against going to the board of guardians for relief. It might possibly
lead to some of them economising to such an extent as seriously to affect the health of their children. Not only on the ground of humanity, but because anything that really tends to handicap a child in its growing must surely be very bad economy from the point of view of the nation at large, I feel compelled to support the Amendment.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I should like to associate myself entirely with the words which have just fallen from the hon. Member, but there are other points in its favour, and they are these. I have never heard any objection come from the workers themselves or from the employers as to the additional burden that is thrown upon us by this extra 5s. for the wife and 1s. for each child, and I do believe that the great bulk of the taxpayers would have no objection to paying the extra 1s. Further, it is illogical. If a man is given 15s. to support himself, and a woman 5s., surely 2s. is the minimum we can give for a child. I resisted just now the proposition that there should be 10s. paid to the wife, instead of 5s., for the reason that when the wife has no children she can do something towards supporting herself. But when she has children to look after, she requires something more than the 5s., and the extra 1s. now proposed for the child meets this need. Therefore I support this Amendment.

Mr. J. JONES: I am more than ever proud of the fact that I happen to come from one of the poorest constituencies in Great Britain, where we try to level up the situation as near as we can out of our local funds. When the great British Empire can only find 1s. per head for the children of the poor in case of necessity, and we in West Ham are paying 5s. for each child that comes before us, then I think I have reason to be proud of the constituency I represent. And we are not extravagant, because the scale we are paying as a local board of guardians was laid down by the Minister of Health, who will never go to Heaven for paying too much to anybody. In this particular instance no Member of the House, hon, or right hon., could possibly justify the 1s., because it costs 2s. 6d. a week to keep a dog in the Battersea Dogs' Home. Nobody in this House has yet got up to justify the amount. All that is said is that the State cannot afford it, and yet there is not a board of guardians in the
country that is not paying to these recipients of Poor Law relief more than is laid down in the provisions of this Bill, and, as representing one of the poorest constituencies, I want to thank the two hon. Gentlemen who have just addressed the House for the sympathy they have expressed. It shows, after all, that sometimes the Labour party do put forward a good case.
Of course, I know that in all the other Amendments we have moved millions have been thrown about. I do not know much about figures, and I know less about finance. The only thing I can understand about it is the fact that I have been without it nearly all my life. But I want, if I can, to make this appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, seeing that he admits that this will amount to about £2,000,000 annually. He is going to pawn the credit of the State, as he says it is, or the credit of the contributors, because it is supposed to be an insurance scheme. In my opinion, it is an insurance scheme against revolution, because if you leave these people to starve, and if their children have to go down into the welter of poverty, you will have to face the responsibility, perhaps, at another period. But you are going to draw on part of the fund for potential results in the future, and you are going into debt. The scheme itself is at present insolvent, and therefore you have to draw post-dated cheques on the banks of security. You might have objected to the larger amounts embodied in previous Amendments, but surely this smaller amount could be added to the potential debt which the right hon. Gentleman says is part of his responsibility, and this is for the sake of the children, of whom he has always been the champion. How are you going to educate children who have been starved on 1s. a week? How are you going to build up the national asset of a healthy population? You have here the chance of redeeming the promise of 1918 of building up an A1, instead of a C3, population.
This Amendment is a reasonable one, and I hope my hon. Friends will take it into the Division lobby to test the sympathy expressed. I have heard so much sympathy expressed since I have been a Member of this House, that I expected to see this country a land flowing with milk and honey. If sympathy could
solve our problems, there would not be a hungry child in this country. But sympathy can only be backed up by people who have power to do it, and the Government have the power if they will. There is a dinner going on downstairs, and I venture to suggest there will be as much money spent there to-night as would feed the children of London for twelve months. The children who want this 1s. would be well provided for by the extravagance displayed now. In asking, on behalf of the poorest section of the community in the East end of London, that this additional 1s. shall be granted, I am asking that Great Britain shall prove, after all, that it is a place fit for children to live in.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: The House must not forget that this Is., paid to dependants of those unemployed, has not been provided by the State altogether. The money is found under the Act that we passed at the end of last year, which made provision for giving this allowance to the children—

Dr. MACNAMARA: For six months!

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Yes, for six months, and it has been extended for a further period?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Fourteen months.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I do not think that a single employer in the land would object to the burden placed upon him, nor would a single workman object to making his contribution towards this fund to provide the dependants' allowances. I am quite sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had increased the obligation upon the employers and the employed workmen that not one would have complained in order to provide this money. When the Minister set himself to make this provision he should certainly have made it more adequate than he did. While I have the utmost admiration for my right hon. Friend, who, I am sure, has a sympathetic heart—it is his head that has gone wrong in this case—when my right hon. Friend set himself to set up this differentiation between single men receiving the 15s. and married men of the same category getting only the same benefit before the dependants' allowance was set up—when he set himself to provide that differentiation which makes such an enormous difference in the benefits given as between the un-
married man and the married man with a family, he should have made a better allowance for children than this paltry Is. He ought to do it still. I believe he has over-estimated the amount of unemployment that is going to continue for the next 14 months. He has estimated it at the highest possible point.
In all likelihood the fund would be more than adequate, that is in borrowing the additional £10,000,000, making thirty with the Supplementary Estimate, which he is bringing forward and, therefore, I think he might have made provision for meeting the very strong case in favour of the children receiving at least 2s. per week. I suggest to him that there is another course that he might follow. If he cannot apply for a larger sum in the Supplementary Estimate, or have powers given to him to borrow a larger amount, I suggest that the deficiency period might be extended. If the Fund is not adequate to provide the additional 1s. the deficiency period should go on until it is repaid. Ultimately if unemployment insurance benefit is to be put upon a proper footing sums for the deficiency period must be provided for.
My right hon. Friend would have done more credit to his Department if he had sought ways and means whereby this concession could have been made. It would have been more in proportion to the 15s. and the 5s., if the 2s. per child were granted. I am quite sure this Bill is not an insulting Measure by no means. My hon. Friend on the other side who stated that does the cause he has at heart a great injustice. No good is done by using that sort of language. It certainly is of great importance that upon the 15s. the family should have this additional money, which adds to the family income as a whole. To that extent I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that we have not to refer to the 1s. as an isolated item, but as an addition to the income of the household. When, however, he was faced with making some allowance for the children it would have been more worthy of his Department and himself if he had tried to find the larger amount. I do not know any man in the whole community who would have objected. I feel sure of this, that if all the Members who will take part in the division were present in the Chamber and heard what is being said, probably there would be a different result than what we are likely to have.
It is an unfortunate factor in our Debates that the men who are now in the House should vote without having heard the Debate. It would be a very graceful concession on the part of the Minister, and would create a good feeling in the House and in the country if he could give way in this one instance, and agree that the 2s. should be given to each child, or meet more adequately the case than it has been up to the present.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: I want to touch upon the point made by the Minister of Labour in reply to the Amendment moved by my two hon. Friends in pointing out that this 1s. was not to be taken as an isolated item, but rather as an addition to the family. He said there was 15s. being paid to the husband and 5s. for the wife, and on the top of this there. was this 1s. for each child. The right hon. Gentleman objected very strongly to any Member describing the Is. per week as a mean contribution to the household finances. But he forgot to tell the House that the original sum paid to the man was 20s. a week.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, for a few months.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then it was reduced to 15s., with 5s. for the wife, which brought the amount back to the £1 where there was a married couple, and then 1s. for each child. I hope my right hon. Friend will attend to his arithmetic a little better when he again addresses the House. The 1s. per week provided is not sufficient. We have maintained that all the time. In November we pointed it out and advocated a larger sum. The Minister was adamant. He was adamant upstairs. He is just as hard down here. I do not blame him personally. I do not blame the Cabinet personally. I blame the whole of them collectively for not analysing the circumstances properly, and for not having a sufficient outlook upon the condition of the country and sizing up what the feelings of the people will be with regard to this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) told the House that the boards of guardians in districts where there were not large ratepayers, but where the ratepayers were composed mainly of workpeople, artisans, labourers, and
casual workers, were paying 5s. for each child. Yet the House of Commons, the House of the nation, can only afford Is.! If there was a war on you would have to afford more. For a war you could get money to any amount, and why cannot you get money when it is for a war against the starvation of the children? That is the position taken up all along by the Members of the Government. This is a contributory scheme from the workers and the employers, and no objection is raised to that. Personally I do not believe in a contributory scheme, and I think the money should all come out of the national funds. Nevertheless you have a contributory scheme, and no one has objected to these sums being paid. The Minister of Labour told us that he was going to take £1,500,000 for administrative purposes, and yet this Amendment is opposed. The financing of this matter is absurd. While I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman's humanity—I do not believe we have a monopoly of humanity, and we have never said that we have—the fact that we have had speeches such as we have listened to tonight from those who are generally found in the opposite Lobby is an indication that their hearts are sound and not so hard as the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who has no heart, and has only a volume of Einstein's "Relativity" in its place.
I hope hon. Members will asisst us in getting this extra 1s. per week for the children. Hon. Members are aware how little 1s. per week will purchase. We hear a good deal about the fall in the cost of living, and that it has gone down by 17 points, but even tinder those conditions 1s. per week will not keep a child. It is true that this shilling per week per child makes the sum total so much more, but on these benches we have to realise that you are now going through abnormal circumstances, and that this period of unemployment is the aftermath of the War, and has to be looked upon as a national problem. Everything that all classes can do to pull the nation through this abnormal period has to be done, no matter what sacrifice it entails. When the time comes, when we get into better circumstances, then with work going on freely throughout the country, any deficiency can be built up, and no person will contribute more gladly to the build-
ing up of that fund than the children whose lives you will help to save by increasing this amount from 1s. to 2s.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: On the last occasion when this matter was before the House I made one or two observations, and everything that has happened since then has convinced me more and more that the proposal contained in this Amendment is right. I am not very much impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's argument as to the funds at his disposal for this scheme. The children must be cared for somehow, and the money in some fashion must be provided from our national resources. The whole question is, how should this money be provided? I was glad to hear the hon. Member opposite say that he sympathised with those parents who had objected to go to the Poor Law Guardians in England or the Parish Councils in Scotland. I am sure the Minister of Labour sympathises with that feeling, because he has had a very wide experience of the difficulties of parents in bringing up their children. It has been said that the people do not seem to have the self-respect that they used to have, but I do not agree with that statement. I will, however, assume the possibility that there might be something in it, and, if so, I think it is for this House to see that a state of things will not be allowed to exist which in any way weakens self-respect.
There is another consideration, and it is that the scheme as it now stands penalises the home with children as against the home where there are no children. If this scheme is to really give the children a chance it should be made a progressive scheme, so that the first child would be allowed so much, and the second and third child so much more. I do not think this House can too strongly express its opinion that the provision now proposed is totally inadequate. I speak as one who has had a considerable experience of difficult times so far as dealing with mothers and children are concerned, and I agree with the statement that we are making a very bad investment for the future if we do not build up now the best stamina and strength in the body and minds of the children who are to be the citizens and parents of the future.
10.0 P.M.
I am afraid it is no use making any further appeals to the Minister of Labour.
We do him the credit of thinking that if this were a matter within his own personal and individual power he would give us not only what we are asking for but a good deal more. Unfortunately there are powers beyond him, but nevertheless I think we should put it on record that this nation did not rise to the height of its opportunity when the time came, and those of us who support this Amendment will be assured at any rate that what we did in this matter in 1922 will give us a clear conscience. I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman's own sake that he is not able to give us the concession for which we are asking.

Mr. BANTON: The question before Us is one of the greatest importance. We have heard a good deal about sympathy in regard to this question, but I think we ought to hear a good deal more of the actual condition of the children living in our midst. In my own district there has been a comparison made between the children in elementary schools and secondary schools, and our medical officer reported that at the age of 13 the children in attendance at the elementary schools were four inches shorter in stature and over one stone lighter in weight than the children in attendance at the secondary schools. That means that tens of thousands of children in attendance at the elementary schools in Leicester were shown to be physically unfit to bear the burdens of life.
Some time ago we were reminded of the condition of our population in Leicester when the recruiting sergeant was seeking out recruits for the Army. Now we have the opportunity, if we have the will, to remedy that condition of things. It seems to me a most astounding thing that the Government, with all the knowledge that has been brought under their observation, should raise any obstacle to this amount being increased from 1s. to 2s. Two shillings is not sufficient, we are fully aware of that, but it would be a great help. Last night in the discussion the thought was given expression to, why it was that the Labour party are growing in strength. The reason why the Labour party are growing in strength is because these grave inequalities and injustices are being brought home to the workers, and they are determined that this condition of things shall be remedied. It is for the sake of the children we are
fighting. We want to have our children not only better fed, better clothed, and better housed, but we are determined they shall be also in a good condition to receive the education we spend so much upon. I would plead with the Minister to take the responsibility of increasing this amount, and, if necessary, trespassing on the future to pay for it.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: A previous speaker mentioned that when this extra contribution was required from employed persons and employers both paid cheerfully the further amount. I heartily endorse what he said, but that is not the end of the story. As employers of labour we have a great responsibility. It is we who have got to set a policy in our own affairs which will restore prosperity and give full employment to the workers of this country. I object to this Amendment, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to his guns for the simple reason that it would make our position more difficult. It is, I agree, a very cheap thing to give sympathy, but it has certain advantages to Members of Parliament; but we have to remember that if we increase these benefits, we are going to prolong the period of unemployment, livery penny which is spent in the relief of unemployment prolongs the period of unemployment a little bit further. Although I have taken what many people will consider an extreme view of the matter, because I have advocated a policy, and I advocate it in respect of this Amendment, which must inevitably lead to very great suffering and privation on the part of the workers of this country, I believe that policy will have the undoubted effect of shortening the period during which those privations are necessary. I appeal to the House not to be guided by any question of what will be popular among the constituencies, not to be misled by that cheapest of all things, spoken sympathy, and in particular not to be misled by the phrase that the Government are mean in this matter. Of all the dangerous things, the use of words without thought is perhaps the most dangerous, and when hon. Members, especially leaders of political thought in this country, come down here and talk about a Minister being either generous or mean, they are simply misusing words in a way which shows that they are
utterly unfit to represent their fellow countrymen in Parliament. How can a Minister be either generous or mean with money that is not his own? As far as this Amendment is concerned, I should like to say to the right hon. Gentleman, to use the words of the Leader of the House, "Stand fast, Moses."

Mr. HOGGE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down seems to imagine that in him resides all the virtues of public life and that he alone among all the Members of this House of Commons is the one man who stands outside all popular clamour and always takes the right and the just view. We are rather tired of the lectures of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). We are rather tired of his logic. We are rather tired of the cheap sneers which he delivers from below the Gangway. We are dealing now with the physical efficiency of the children of unemployed, and the proposal of the Minister is that that can be maintained at the rate of 1s. a week My hon. Friend draws a picture of the Labour Minister being generous or ungenerous with money that is not his. I do not remember what exactly happened in the Division on the first Clause, and how my hon. Friend voted. I presume he was in the House. I presume ho was not looking to his constituents, but was giving an honest vote, as he always does, in sympathy with those principles to which he clings so tenaciously. By the first Clause the Labour Minister took over £1,000,000 to give to the officials of his Ministry in administering this Act.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I did nothing of the kind.

Mr. HOGGE: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what precisely he did do? The Order Paper quite distinctly states he substitutes one-eighth for one-tenth. Is that so or not? My right hon. Friend is very silent now.

Dr. MACNAMARA: It is not so.

Mr. HOGGE: There is no use sitting still and saying it is not so. Will the right hon. Gentleman get up and say how much it means in money?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is going back on the first Clause.

Mr. HOGGE: I am not going back on the First Clause, but my argument is drawn from that Clause. It is this, that when my hon. Friend below the gangway says we are generous with other people's money in dealing with children, I must point out that the Minister already has taken over £1,000,000 for administration expenses, and the argument I use is, that if that amount can be taken for administration purposes, I do not see why my hon. Friend should object to a like sum being given to the children. I do not know how my hon. Friend voted on that Clause, or if he voted at all; probably his mind was too fluid at that state of the proceedings to be made up on a question of this kind. It is not merely a question whether we should take a certain sum of money for the maintenance of children. In this matter we do not take that short view, and if my hon. Friend will get that into his placid mind I shall be glad. We take a long view, and it is this, that we are dealing with unemployment, and if we do not maintain the children of the unemployed while the unemployment exists, we are going to saddle this community with a much greater expenditure in the future than we are asking of the Minister to-night.
If there is one period in the life of the citizen of this country when it is more necessary than at any other that the physique of the applicant should be built up in order that he may make a good citizen, it is when he is a growing child. A citizenship which is built up of children who have been properly maintained is a bigger asset to the State than is represented by a citizenship built up from children of a poor physique. We do not care for my hon. Friend's sneers; we do not believe he represents anyone in the community but himself. But those of us who are more in contact than he is with the life of the community know that the greatest contribution we can make to the growing citizenship of this country is to equip it physically. During the War we had many discussions on the question of the physique of this population. C3 was a term which everyone used in almost every speech, and we were shocked over and over again by the particulars we had with regard to the physique of the population. Now as a direct result of the War, due to the inefficiency of this Government, we are faced with a period of abnormal unemployment, and the idea
that anybody should deny an extra 1s. per child to the children of the unemployed is inconceivable to anyone who thinks of the future of our race. My hon. Friend apparently lives in his own present, and therefore takes a short view.

Captain ELLIOT: When the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) begins to dilate on the hollowness of the arguments of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), one can be sure we are in for some peculiarly ineffective statement which has nothing whatever to do with the question under discussion, and when in particular the hon. Member goes on to claim that he is more in touch with the life of the great industrial community in this country than the hon. Member for Mossley, who, as everyone in this House must admit, has shown in practice and in thought that there is no subject which he feels more keenly than the well-being of the industrial community, it makes one inclined to reconsider one's previous decision to vote against the Government on this particular Amendment. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh has almost turned me from my decision to vote against the Government on this Amendment, but not quite. I am still of the opinion that, in spite of his speech, there is only one course for me to adopt this evening, and that is to vote for the Amendment now under consideration. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that, if anything could have shaken my opinion on this occasion, ix is the speech that we have just heard from him, and particularly his reference to the War Parliament, which, I think, was somewhat out of place in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson), who, on the occasion when these questions were being debated, was doing something a little more practical than talking on behalf of the workers and their children in this country.
I find myself at variance with the hon. Member for Mossley on this occasion, and in sympathy with the Labour party on this Amendment, for one or two practical reasons which I think the hon. Member for Mossley has overlooked. The first point that I should like to put to him is that the burden of unemployment, falling, as it does, with peculiar severity on particular areas of this country, is unjustly severe on those areas where great masses of our
industrial population are gathered together, and that any means by which we can spread this burden over the shoulders of the nation should be adopted. I would point out to the Minister and to the House that any sum which is contributed in this way from national sources is actually a contribution in relief of rates. It tends to relieve the burden on the locality and spread it over the shoulders of the nation, and I think that that is a just principle, especially in these times of severe and continued and long-lasting depression. It is not a case of expending or not expending the money which is at present under consideration; it is a case of expending it from national sources or from local sources—from the rates or from the taxes. The rates are already bearing an extremely heavy burden in this respect, and one which, in my opinion, cannot indefinitely be borne by them. A certain transference of the burden to national sources, therefore, is not a bad thing but a good thing, and I would ask the Minister—not on the point of economy or squandermania, for these questions do not enter into the matter—to reconsider his opinion and see whether, since the money has to be voted, it is not better that it should be voted from national rather than from local sources.
My second point is the point that I and my Friends with whom I am associated made last year when we moved the Amendment which is now being debated, namely, that the distribution of this grant is disproportionate. Five shillings for a wife and 1s. for each child—that is to say, a grant of one-fifth for a child as compared with an adult—is not in accordance with what we know in respect of their different needs. That one-fifth does not represent the need of the child as compared with the adult, and I would beg the Minister's attention to that. Even if he had to re-arrange the money within his fund it would be worth his while, because of the fact that a child requires more than one-fifth of the expenditure as compared with an adult. As anyone knows, a man and his wife with an extra 5s. an re far better off than a man, his wife and a baby with an extra Is. A childless couple on 5s. are in an infinitely better position than a couple with a family of one, two or three and a supplement of one, two or three shillings. The household expenses are quite different. The wife is not able to
earn money in support of the house. In every circumstance the case is entirely different when a man has set up a house and established around himself the nucleus of a home within which to keep his family.
The third point I should like to put to the Minister is this. It is said by the Minister with truth that 1s. does not represent a contribution being made by the country for the sake of the children, because there is the Feeding of Necessitous Children Act. I admit that that is a point of substance which the House would do well to attend to, but in the years between one and five, which are amongst the critical years of a child's life, it is coming into small benefit in respect of this grant and into no benefit in respect of the meals provided at schools. It might be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a concession in respect of these children. I ask the attention of the Minister of Education whether it would not be perfectly easy for him to give information to the Labour Ministry as to whether these children had or had not reached the age of five. Last year the Minister refused our request on the ground, first, that it was a temporary Measure and before it could be ascertained the period of six months for which the Bill was designed would have expired. That argument does not hold now. He is coming back for a period of 14 months. If he had done it six months ago the thing would have been complete by now. I ask him whether he could not see his way to make even a small increase in respect of the child between one and five years old. The Education Ministry knows when the children are coming to school age. It has its inspectors. It has the school population mapped out and could supply the information with very little difficulty. I ask him to see whether he cannot, in conjunction with the Minister of Education, make some provision for children in those critical years when they are not able to get any benefit from the provision of food at the schools and when they have lost the money they may get in their infancy in respect of maternity grants from welfare centres. The problem was debated last year. If it is not altered this year we shall certainly debate it again in years to come, because the problem of unemployment will be with us for years. I ask
the Minister seriously to reconsider the verdict he gave in Committee.

Mr. W. SMITH: One is always placed in a difficulty whilst listening to the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) speaking on such a question as this. It is always difficult to believe that he is really sincere in the statements he makes, because if one carries to a logical conclusion the suggestions that he puts forward in regard to this question of unemployment, it really means that he hopes to reduce the rate of unemployment by increasing the death rate, because unless there is assistance given to people who are unable to provide anything for themselves, the death rate- must ultimately determine their position. I think that there is a great danger in the suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) so far as the feeding of school children is concerned, because the feeding of school children is not universal in the country. If it were taken as a contribution to meet this contingency, it would mean that in the large industrial centres, where you have got more progressive educational authorities, it would have application, but when you get to the rural and semi-rural parts where you have county education authorities, the feeding of school children, very largely, does not operate. Therefore, I do not think that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman can be taken as meeting the difficulty.
I would draw attention to the difference in the amount of money which is considered adequate for a child now as compared with what was considered adequate during the War, and also as compared with the allowances considered necessary under the present pension rates. The allowances then were much more substantial than what is suggested in this Bill. I know that it may be argued that there is a great difference between the two conditions, but both the War conditions which necessitated the separation allowances and the pensions scheme after all arose out of a national emergency, and the present unemployment is also a question of national emergency connected with the same cause. Therefore it is difficult to understand how it is possible for the Government to stand by their proposal of this paltry allowance of 1s. so far as children
are concerned. The Minister of Labour, when speaking on this question, took exception to the way in which it was put before the House by some hon. Members behind him, and said he thought that it would be fair to put it in this way, that the present Bill was extending a six months' period to a 14 months' period, but I would like to suggest to him that the extension of an injustice does not in any way remove it.
Another important point is this. Any deficit which arises is to be carried forward by the borrowing powers, and will ultimately have to be met by future contributions to be made by the insured person, the employers and the State. If the people in the country later on are to be called upon to meet the deficit that is now being accumulated as a result of these benefits, then those who to-day are the children receiving this miserable allowance will be the persons who very largely will be called upon to make contributions to make up the deficit. That being so, it is easy to assume that those children who are nearing the age of leaving school would have reached the age of 16, at which they will become insurable persons, and therefore out of their earnings at that period they will have deductions made to meet this deficit. This is a very strong reason why the children of to-day should have a more adequate allowance made to them under the provisions of this Bill.
Perhaps if we were approaching this question purely from the standpoint of party politics we should ask the Government to take a Division, and we should accept our defeat upon it. But we desire to put this question on a rather higher level than that. We are concerned with the interests of these children, and the position of parents who are responsible for their well-being, and we are conscious of the fact that local authorities, if we do not meet this difficulty, will be called upon, although already overburdened, to deal with the problem. Having regard, further, to the fact that the Government have inserted in the Bill a Clause whereby guardians in giving relief must have regard to the amount of money paid under this Bill, there is a very strong argument for an increase of this benefit. I hope the Government will take their courage in their hands on this occasion, even though it may add to the deficit.

Major BARNES: I wish to reinforce the very cogent pleas put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot). My experience of the Minister of Labour is that in resisting Amendments of this sort on any of the Bills dealing with unemployment, it has not been for want of heart that he has resisted, but for want of means. I am sorry that for the moment the Minister is out of the House, but perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is in charge, will take note of the point. What was suggested was that in this increase of the child's allowance from 1s. to 2s. a week the Government have an opportunity of meeting what is a genuine demand coming from industrial areas all over the country on account of the present state of unemployment. Everybody who is associated with any of these industrial areas knows how real the pressure is and how the demand is being voiced by men who would be the last in the world to make pleas for grants or doles or relief of any sort if they did not feel that such pleas wore absolutely necessary. What I understood the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark to say was that if the Government would accept the Amendment the effect would be exactly the same as if there were a grant to these particular areas. It would act as a relief to the rates. The Government have to meet that pressure and to answer it. The Minister of Labour might reply, "That is a Ministry of Health matter. It is their burden and trouble, not mine, and there is no reason why I should shoulder a burden which should fall on the Ministry of Health." But this Government is not run in watertight compartments. It is one Government, with one people and one problem.
The Government can find an opportunity here of doing what they might very well feel it proper to do in another way. I can quite understand that the Government may feel that they cannot embark upon the principle of relieving special areas of special burdens. But by accepting this Amendment they will, in effect, be doing what is wanted. There is an additional reason for doing it. If this is not done, what will happen in Newcastle, on the Clyde, in Birmingham, in Sheffield, and in every part of the
country? Men who cannot get relief in this way must go to the guardians, and the guardians are bound to help them. The help given by the guardians will not be repaid. It is a grant; it will never come back to the Government. But if help be given in the way suggested by the Amendment, it will come back. This will all be included in the loan which is coming from the Treasury, and I understand the Government expects that in due time the loan will be wiped off by unemployment contributions, when the fund gets back to a normal state. The Government have a two-fold chance: they have a chance of relieving necessitous areas and of doing so by loan instead of grant.
The argument used by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) may also be taken into account. During the passage of this Bill through Committee the Treasury has relieved itself of a sum at least equal to what would be required to meet this extra shilling. They have got rid of two and a-half per cent, of the cost of administration and put that upon the fund. There is, thus, really a threefold ground for acceding to this request. First you will relieve the necessitous areas, secondly, you will do it by means of loan instead of by a grant, and, thirdly, you will give a quid pro quo to the fund for what you are taking out in respect of administration expenses. It may be the Minister will say he cannot accept the Amendment. Will he then consult the Cabinet as to whether when this Bill comes to another place, the Cabinet will not take into account the whole problem including the demands that are being made on the Ministry of Health? Having given consideration to the whole problem they might see their way, if they cannot do so here, to give this increase in another place.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that hon. Members are now repeating arguments used previously during this discussion, which has now lasted nearly two hours. There is a Standing Order against repetition, and I fear that I shall be obliged to put it into force.

Mr. MYERS: I would not have risen at all in this Debate had it not been for the comments of the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). I always listen to him with tremendous interest. I believe him to be absolutely sincere, and I believe
that upon all occasions he speaks from a good and a full heart. I recognise, at the same time, that he often speaks to the discomfiture of his own friends, inasmuch as he gives away the position of those with whom he is associated. On occasions, when directing his attention more particularly to the Labour Benches, he is often very assertive and sometimes extravagant, but, setting his weaknesses against his virtues and weighing up the two together, we are compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt. His lopsided idea of political economy causes him to put forward some strange doctrines. I think about the strangest doctrine he has ever sought to propagate was contained in his speech this evening, when he asserted that if we gave 2s. a week for each child instead of Is. we should prolong the period of unemployment. We must put that into the category of the assertions which the hon. Member hurls across the House, but does not support with any kind of argument or Any justification whatever. We by no means accept the views which he has presented to us on that matter.
When this point was under discussion in the original Bill, I remember talking the matter over with one of my colleagues and expressing great regret at the paucity of the offer that we made. I was discussing it from the point of view that I believed the Bill was making provision for Is. a day per child, and even then I felt dissatisfaction. Imagine my surprise when I was reminded by my colleague that it was not Is. a day, but 1s. a week. I think even now, particularly under existing circumstances, that we are entitled to come much nearer to that 1s. a day than the provision set forth in this Bill. It is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself that the prevailing conditions are infinitely worse than they were when the original Bill was introduced. Gradually trade union funds are being depleted, the sources of private generosity are being dried up, and from every point of view the condition of things is worse now than it was then. Further, I think we are entitled to make an appeal on another line. The provisions of this Bill are only, we understand, for a period of about 15 months, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, having regard to the fact that he can measure his responsibility
from the point of view of that period of time, and having regard to the exceptional conditions that prevail, he might stretch the other shilling in the direction of these children.
The House must remember that if this shilling does not go into the homes of the people, the same shilling, or an equivalent amount, will have to be found elsewhere, and those of us who are associated with the working-class life of the country know very well that it is much sounder economy to have 1s. in the home than a relative amount to be drawn elsewhere. We do not get the same results if it is expended either in Poor Law administration or in the direction of what can be granted in the school clinics and the school services and elsewhere. Again, there is a move on foot at the present time to reduce or to deprecate the expenditure which has been incurred in the direction of the feeding of the school children, and from that point of view this matter is entitled to some consideration. On the broad humanitarian appeal, we ought, I think, to take cognisance of the fact that it is not desirable, even in these hard times, to impose the oppressive burden of the period upon those who are least able to bear it, and whoever or whatever causes may be responsible for the present condition of affairs, it is not the children who are responsible, and we ought not to put the burden of existing circumstances upon them. I therefore add my appeal to those already made, and urge on the right hon. Gentleman to make this concession.

Mr. C. WHITE rose—

HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"

Mr. WHITE: This is the 15th time I have risen, and I have not been fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the Committee stage of the Bill, and there are 700 Members of the House. Everybody cannot speak upon every Amendment.

Mr. WHITE: I quite agree, but at one time to-night there were only about 20 Members here and I was one of the 20. I will endeavour to obey your ruling, Sir, as to no repetition, although it is difficult, 'speaking so late in the Debate, not to repeat what has been said before. I want, however, to refer to what has been said by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson).

Mr. SPEAKER: That has been referred to four times already.

Mr. WHITE: Very well, but I was going to refer to something that had not been referred to by other hon. Members. I do not appeal to the Minister at all. Notwithstanding the good character that has been given him, I am sure it is futile appealing to him after what he has said about this matter. But I want to appeal to his supporters or those who usually support him. I want them to be comutineers to-night, and to vote against their own Minister. This would not be a party Division. The Government would not have to resign if they were defeated. What has not been said to-night is that the Government, having taken this responsibility for an insurance scheme, has not provided an adequate sum not only for insuring the men, because it does not end there. The wife and children depend on the man when he is in employment, and they also depend on him when he is not in employment. Therefore the sum for which the Government have now made themselves responsible should be such as to ensure a decent standard of comfort in the homes of the people who are out of employment. The present rate does not do that. There are men and women to-day actually existing on the present unemployment pay. They are too proud in many of the districts I represent in this House—although it is a very aristocratic Division—to go to the parish for that relief. They have sold up their homes, used up their few savings, and the Minister has spoken of a man and wife and two children having twenty-two shillings! I am not taking a shilling a week for a child, but am

averaging it between the four. It means five-and-six a week for each. Let us work it out in a little bit of human arithmetic. This has not been said tonight. In the matter of meals, three-pence a head for each is a shilling a day; three meals a day is three shillings; and seven days is twenty-one shillings a week, which leaves one shilling for all the other necessaries of life. And what sort of meal? A bit of bread, and often nothing to it for breakfast, the same for dinner, the same for tea, and no supper.

I am tired of hearing so much of the financial and technical side of this question. The child is the greatest asset of the future, the future citizen, and it is our duty to look after the children in this instance more than in any other respect of which I know. I remember when this House would freely have voted, if it had not been for the Opposition here, millions for clothing the soldiers of this country in red. Let us look at this from the human side. I have had to get up and earn the breakfast for my children many mornings before they could have it, and I can enter into the feelings of these people who have to live on this unemployment pay as few Members of this House can. I do not appeal to the Minister, because I know he will not alter his word; I do not. appeal to the Government, but I appeal to those Members who are actuated by that intense human sympathy that has been expressed to-night, to go into the Lobby with us, to carry this Amendment, and thus to give the children the much-needed comfort they deserve.

Question put, "That the words 'one shilling' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 84.

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Carew, Charles Robert S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Atkey, A. R.
Carr, W. Theodore
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Green, Joseph F, (Leicester, W.)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar


Barnston, Major Harry
Coats, Sir Stuart
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)


Blane, T. A.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Elveden, Viscount
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Breese, Major Charles E.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hood, Sir Joseph


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falls, Major Sir Bertram Godlray
Hopkins, John W. W.


Brown, Major D. C.
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosstey)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Parker, James
Sugden, W. H.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llaneily)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Sutherland, Sir William


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Walter Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Pratt, John William
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Lindsay, William Arthur
Ramsden, G. T.
Townley, Maximilian G


Lloyd, George Butler
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Rees, sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Lorden, John William
Reid, D. D.
Waddington, R.


Lort-Williams, J.
Renter, J. R.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Renwick, Sir George
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Maddocks, Henry
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Manville, Edward
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Mitchell, Sir William Lane
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Winterton, Earl


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wise, Frederick


Neal, Arthur
Seddon, J. A.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Nicholson, Brig. Gen. J. (Westminster)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)



Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Stevens, Marshall
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
McCurdy.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Robertson, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Banton, George
Hancock, John George
Sexton, James


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Evan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sitch, Charles H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, William
Jameson, John Gordon
Stanton, Charles Butt


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Cape, Thomas
Johnstone, Joseph
Sturrock, J. Leng


Carter, w. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Casey, T. W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, J.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kennedy, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawson, John James
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, Wast)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Finney, Samuel
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Foot, Isaac
Newman, Sir R. H, S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Forrest, Walter
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Woolcock, William James U.


Galbraith, Samuel
Rattan, Peter Wilson
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillis, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Goff, Sir R. Park
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Colonel Penry Williams and Mr.




Hogge.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members on my left have handed me a large number of manuscript Amendments. I must point out that we cannot allow the Report stage to be a repetition of the Committee stage. I have, however, endeavoured to pick out the most important of these Amendments, which I think will give scope for the chief points hon. Members wish to bring forward.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Provisions with respect to benefit in third and fourth special periods.)

(1) If it appears to the Minister that, haying regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the public interest that a person, notwithstanding that by reason
that he does not satisfy the first statutory condition, or that he is disqualified under Sub-section (4) of Section eight of the principal Act for receiving benefit, or (except as hereinafter otherwise expressly provided) by reason of the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act, he may not be entitled to receive benefit, should be allowed to receive benefit in the third or the fourth special period, as the case may be, the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this Section, authorise that person to receive benefit—

(a) during the third special period for periods not exceeding in the aggregate fifteen weeks;
(b) during the fourth special period for periods not exceeding in the aggregate twelve weeks and, subject to the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which
2569
provides that a person shall not receive more benefit than in the proportion of one week's benefit for every six contributions paid), for two further periods, neither of which shall exceed in the aggregate five weeks.

(2) When and so often as a person has received benefit under this Section in the third special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to five weeks, he shall cease to be qualified for the receipt of benefit in the third special period until the expiration of five weeks from the end of the last period in respect of which benefit was payable, and if at any time before the seventeenth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-two, the amount of benefit received by any person since the commencement of the second special period amounts in the aggregate to twenty-two weeks, he shall not be qualified for receiving any further benefit until the said seventeenth day of April.

(3) The Minister shall not authorise any person to receive benefit under this Section unless that person proves

(a) That he is normally employed in such employment as would make him an employed person within the meaning of the principal Act:
(b) That he is genuinely seeking, but unable to obtain whole-time employment:
(c) Either that not less than twenty contributions have been paid in respect of him under the principal Act, or that, having regard to the opportunities of employment in his normal employment, he has since the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and nineteen been employed for a reasonable length of time in some occupation employment in which would if the principal Act had been in force during the whole period of his employment have made him an employed person within the meaning of that Act, or, in the case of a person formerly engaged in war service, that he had been so employed before becoming so engaged, or had no opportunity owing to his youth of being so employed.

For the purposes of paragraph (c) aforesaid the Minister may, in the case of any person formerly engaged in war service who has at the cost of funds administered by the Minister, or by the Minister of Pensions, undergone training for an occupation employment in which would have made him an employed person, treat that training as if it were employment which would, if the principal Act had been in force during the period of training, have made that person an employed person within the meaning of that Act.

(4) For the purpose of qualifying a person to receive, within either the third or the fourth special period, benefit up to the aggregate amount which may be authorised by the Minister under this Act, but for no other purpose, there shall be treated as
having been paid in respect of him such number of contributions as are sufficient so to qualify him.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 and 1921, or in this Act, no person shall be entitled to receive benefit in the third special period for periods amounting in the aggregate to more than fifteen weeks, or in the fourth special period for periods amounting in the aggregate (except as hereinbefore otherwise expressly provided) to more than eighteen weeks.

(6) No person who holds, or who has at any time held, a certificate of exemption under Section three of the principal Act shall be entitled to benefit under this section.

(7) If any question arises as to whether any person satisfies the requirements of this section, the question shall be decided by the Minister.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words
If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the public interest that a person, notwithstanding that by reason that he does not satisfy the first statutory condition, or that he is disqualified under Subsection (4) of Section eight of the principal Act for receiving benefit, or (except as hereinafter otherwise expressly provided) by reason of the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the principal Act, ho may not be entitled to receive benefit, should be allowed.
and to insert instead thereof the words
Every person who fulfils the conditions laid down in this Section shall be entitled.
We consider this Amendment a very important one. What we ask is that the same condition shall apply to the second, third, and fourth periods as apply to the first. That the man will find when he has paid his contributions that he is automatically entitled to receive benefit under this fund, we ask that the same thing shall apply to the people who receive benefit in the other periods, but as at present the Minister decides the point, we consider that unfair. We say that this payment is not a charity in any sense; if so, we say that any expensive and irritating inquiries should be, as far as possible, dispensed with. The workers pay their share, and we have to remember that the employers' portion is a charge on the industry and comes out of the workers' wages, and, as a matter of fact, they pay a big share of the State contribution as well. The late Minister of Health once said that
the workers pay at least five-sevenths of the whole of these contributions. Therefore the conditions ought to be made as light as possible for them. If this Clause goes through as it is in the Bill, it will be imperative that rules shall be drawn up for the guidance of the local committees, and this will disqualify many of them from receiving benefit. All the payments should be automatically made provided that the applicants fulfil the conditions of the Clause. We are not asking that these payments should be made unconditionally. My only point is that the same conditions should apply to the second, third, and fourth periods as apply to the first period.

Mr. GILLIS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA: There are two parts of this Act. One is the permanent structure for which the man gets benefit under the Statutory provisions, and that is not touched by this Bill. As a result of very grave unemployment since the fall of the year 1920, I have added another section, bringing in the 8,000,000 people who then came into insurance, and for these people I wanted to make the conditions less onerous.
It is this side, the uncovenanted side, with which we are now dealing. I am not proposing to touch the covenanted side, provision for which is laid down in the Statute. I am proposing in regard to the uncovenanted side to have some discretion as to the conditions under which these benefits shall be paid. From the fall of 1920 to the present time the accumulated funds provided for 52 weeks' benefit. We are now providing to the end of October for 15 weeks more, and from October to June next we shall provide for another 22 weeks, and this benefit will be received by many people who have paid little or nothing into this fund. We are paying benefits in advance of contributions, and I think, in these circumstances, I am entitled to

lay down reasonable and just conditions under which this free uncovenanted benefit should be granted. My hon. Friend's Amendment would take my discretion away entirely. The hon. Member talks about his proposal being automatic. May I point out that these benefits have not been contributed, and they are free uncovenanted benefits. Therefore I am bound to make such regulations as, will secure that this fund shall be conserved for those who need it most. I cannot think that the House will agree that this side shall not be at the discretion of the Minister. As to the statement that I wish to have an expensive; and irritating inquiry, I want to do nothing of the kind. All I want is to; see that such money as I have got shall go to the people who need it most of all, and to that end I ask to be allowed to retain this discretion.

Mr. GILLIS: The object of this Amendment is to provide that each person covered by the Bill shall receive benefits if he fulfils the conditions laid down in the Bill. The Minister in Clause 4 asks for power to make Regulations, to say whether a person is entitled to benefit or not. He wishes to have two voices for one. I suppose it will be said the object is to provide against young persons imposing on the Act. I think we can rest-assured there will not be very many impostors under this Bill.
To my mind it is absolutely unfair that there should be two chances to one. There are three contributors to the fund. It is like three playing at a game—"heads I win, tails you lose; what I lose on the swings I shall get back on the hobbyhorses." What we say is, that all contributors to this Act should receive benefit, and I hope the House will support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 139; Noes, 50.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Brittain, Sir Harry


Atkey, A. R.
Bonn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Broad, Thomas Tucker


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Brown, Major D. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Bruton, Sir James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Blane, T. A.
Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.


Barker, Major Robert H.
Borwick, Major G. O.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Carew, Charles Robert S.


Barnston, Major Harry
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Casey, T. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Johnstone, Joseph
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange)


Coats, Sir Stuart
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Seddon, J. A.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lindsay, William Arthur
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Lorden, John William
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lort-Williams, J.
Stanton, Charles Butt


Doyle, N. G rattan
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Elveden, Viscount
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sugden, W. H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Manville, Edward
Sutherland, Sir William


Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Taylor, J.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Forrest, Walter
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neal, Arthur
Townley, Maximilian G.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


Gee, Captain Robert
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, James
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Perkins, Walter Frank
Wilson- Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Winterton, Earl


Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Pratt, John William
Wise, Frederick


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ramsden, G. T.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Randles, Sir John Scurrah
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J. R.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)



Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
McCurdy.


Jameson, John Gordon
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich).


Ammon, Charles George
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Robertson, John


Banton, George
Hancock, John George
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hayward, Evan
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, William
Hogge, James Myles
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lunn, William
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeon, C.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis



Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gillis, William
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. W. Smith.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10.—(Legal proceedings.)

(1) The wife or husband of a person charged with an offence under the principal Act as amended by any subsequent enactment may be called as a witness either for the prosecution or defence and without the consent of the person charged.

Mr. SEXTON: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
I was hoping that there would be no necessity for moving this Amendment, from an indication given by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee that some words would be inserted in the Clause that would remove our fear that a husband and wife might be used against each other
by the Government Department, and our reason for putting this Amendment down is that we may get some further indication from the right hon. Gentleman that that will not be done. It is, in our opinion, against the principle of the general common law of the land, and is a very dangerous thing to introduce. The right hon. Gentleman did tell us that in some few cases it exists to-day, but there is in the Clause no safeguard against the wife being called upon to give evidence against the husband, or vice versé. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, but the very mischievous principle is here introduced of creating enmity between man and wife. It does not add
to domestic felicity, and it certainly introduces a very vicious principle. If the wife and husband have the slightest affection for each other, they are bound not to tell the truth, while if, on the other hand, they are vindictively inclined, then there is a row in the house immediately, and the right hon. Gentleman will be responsible for that domestic trouble. The right hon. Gentleman did promise in Committee that something should be introduced into the Clause to prevent that mischief occurring, and as it has not yet been put in I have put down this Amendment.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I beg to second the Amendment. The House is entitled to hear the statement made by the Minister in Committee, and to get to know from him how far he is prepared to carry out the promise he has evidently given—[Interruption]—or led them to believe something was likely to come of it.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I explained in Committee why we had this Sub-section in the Bill, in order that a wife or a husband, as the case might be, might be a competent witness in a prosecution for fraud. For instance, we have had cases, very few I am glad to say, where because we could not call one or the other we could not proceed. I will take one case only. Here is a man claiming 5s. on behalf of his wife in respect of another woman. How about that? We could not proceed unless we had the evidence of the wife. It is not a question of sex distinction. This does not involve compulsion. It is in the common form that has been put into about 15 Statutes, and it has been held in the House of Lords that it does not involve compulsion, but I will have it examined again and if there is any element whatever of compulsion—and I am sure there is not—I will have it modified.

Mr. SEXTON: Our fear is that the wife or the husband will be compelled.

Dr. MACNAMARA: No.

Mr. SEXTON: According to the wording that is so.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I will take care if this is not the form—and I am assured it is—that it is altered in another place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Construction, saving, short title, commencement, and duration.)

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requites,—
The expression "a dependent child" means any child under the age of sixteen years who is maintained wholly or mainly at the cost of the person entitled to benefit, or any child between the ages of fourteen and sixteen who is under full-time instruction in a day school and is so maintained as aforesaid:
The expression "child" includes a stepchild, an adopted child, and an illegitimate child.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "sixteen" ["under the age of sixteen years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "fourteen."
The Bill as it went upstairs contained the provision which we had laid down last November in the Unemployed Workers' Grants Scheme in respect of the age up to which children should receive the allowance. The age was originally 14. Many hon. Members at that time moved to substitute 16. We compromised by a suggestion of mine to pay up to 16 if they go to school. That gives some encouragement to them not to run on the streets. That is how the thing has stood for six months. In Committee the word "sixteen" was inserted in lieu of "fourteen," so that now my scheme under which they get Is. up to 16 if they went to school has gone and they will get 1s. up to 16 in any case. I am asking the House with every confidence to restore the Bill to its original form, and I think that is a very sound and common-sense proposition. I have been appealed to in most pathetic terms in view of my early days as a schoolmaster, but I ask the House to go back to the form in which it has been operating for six months under the Unemployed Workers' Dependants Grant. I think that is sound, and I call upon the House to restore the Bill to that form.

Mr. ROBERTSON: I hope sincerely that the House will retain the Bill in its present form. I have always a great respect for the schoolmaster, but unfortunately he does not stand on the pedestal on which he used to stand, not that he is any less clever than formerly,
but because the general level has been raised and the scholar sometimes can argue with the schoolmaster. I think that the weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's position is this. The Government themselves have laid down the proposition that between the ages of 14 and 16 the individual is a child because they are not insuring him, and consequently this is a section of the population which are left out. If they were going to school now no one would be more delighted than I, if they were going to a proper school under a proper schoolmaster. But I come from a mining area, a large industrial area, and the right hon. Gentleman has put this forward from the standpoint that if the boy leaves school at 14 and is unemployed he will be running the streets if he does not go to school. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. You will get scores of boys who leave school at 14 and are unemployed, and who will tramp from one colliery to another, mile after mile, and from one steel and iron works to another, trying to get employment and doing harder work by looking for employment than if they were employed, and these boys would be penalised by refusing them this benefit. I submit that fair play, justice, and common sense are all on our side, and I sincerely trust that the House will stand by the Amendment which has been made.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he will find it very difficult to carry out even his own proposals. It is very difficult now for education authorities to find school accommodation for children under 14 years of age, and the question of continuation schools, which would have been of some advantage to those children between 14 and 16 has been dropped completely by the Board of Education, so that the right hon. Gentleman is holding out a hope that if these children go to school he is willing to pay them when there is no provision made for them to get into a school. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Robertson) that these are the children who ought to be well looked after, for they are near the earning period when they are likely to do something for the benefit of their neighbours. If you are going to undermine them between the ages of 14 and 16 you will at once begin to become a
C.3 nation. There is no hope, so far as I can see, of the present Minister of Education getting the money from the Board of Education to take these children into schools. There is no hope even of getting teachers. You are asked to cut down every service inside education, and that is being done, and children already are running the streets because of the lack of places in schools. If he has children between 14 and 16, and they are refused places, we might as well say, "Thank you for nothing" as say, "Go to school between 14 and 16." There is no hope in what the right hon. Gentleman is asking.

Mr. HOGGE: Apart from the merits of the Amendment, it must be borne in mind that this Bill has come from a Standing Committee. The Standing Committee discussed the Bill, and made two alterations in it. On that Committee the Government had a majority of the Members, but in spite of that fact the commonsense of the Committee made two alterations in the Bill. Those two alterations are the only proposals that are resisted by the Minister now that the Bill is downstairs. In the name of common-sense, what is the use of referring Bills to a selected number of the Members of this House if on Report we are to be deprived of what we gained upstairs? The Chair would inform the House, I am sure, that when a Bill has gone upstairs and has come back here on Report, we are not entitled to discuss again at any great length questions which have been discussed upstairs, even though there is in a Standing Committee less than one-seventh of the membership of the whole House. That being so, there is the more reason why decisions made upstairs ought to stand downstairs unless some substantial reason is given or unless we are to hold up the whole of Parliamentary procedure to ridicule. I do not think it is fair to the House or that it is right for the Minister on the Report stage, when he has a majority at his back who have not heard the discussion upstairs, to bring his battalions down and to reverse the decisions upstairs.
I am glad to see that the Minister of Pensions is present. In the case of children of men killed in the War, pensions are granted up to the age of 16. Under this Bill you do not propose to deal with the child beyond the age of 14,
whereas in the case of the child of the soldier killed in the War the pension may run from the age of one to the age of 16 and cover 16 years. Under this Bill you give the child Is. a week, but the pensioned child of a soldier receives 7s. 6d. a week. The Admiralty do much the same thing. I appeal to the Minister of Labour as a House of Commons man. Just now he assumed the role of teacher. If he has taught himself anything, he has taught himself that the one unfair thing that any Government can do is to take advantage of an ignorant majority downstairs to reverse the decision of an informed majority upstairs. I hope my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby against this proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: When the Division on this point was taken in the Committee, there were only 23 Members present.

Mr. HOGGE: Whose fault was that?

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: I am not apportioning the fault, but there were very few Members present, and that is all the more reason why the matter should be debated now.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that there were as few supporters of the Government attending the Committee upstairs as there are attending here now?

Question put, "That the word 'sixteen' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 51: Noes, 128.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[11.43 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Banton, George
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hogge, James Myles
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnstone, Joseph
Spencer, George A.


Bromfield, William
Jones. J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Swan, J. E.


Cairns, John
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cape, Thomas
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)
Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Finney, Samuel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Gillis, William
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Walter Smith and Mr.


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Kennedy.


Hancock, John George




NOES.


Amery, Leopold C. M.S.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llaneily)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Atkey, A R.
Doyle, N. Grattan
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Ednam, Viscount
Lorden, John William


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lort-Williams, J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, Ernest
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.


Barnston, Major Harry
Falcon, Captain Michael
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H (Devizes)
Faile, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Beilairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Manville, Edward


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Forrest, Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Blane, T. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Neal, Arthur


Berwick, Major G. O.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Goff, Sir R. Park
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, James


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Brown, Major D. C.
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Perkins, Walter Frank


Bruton, Sir James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pratt, John William


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Geraid Fitzroy
Ramsden, G. T.


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Randies, Sir John Scurrah


Casey, T. W.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Hurd, Percy A.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Roundeil, Colonel R. F.


Coats, Sir Stuart
Jameson, John Gordon
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert Arthur


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Johnson, Sir Stanley
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)
Sutherland, Sir William
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Seddon, J. A.
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)
Winterton, Earl


Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Townley, Maximilian G.
Wise, Frederick


Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Stanton, Charles Butt
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Stephenson, Lieut. Colonel H. K.
Willey, Lieut.-Colonel F. V.



Strauss, Edward Anthony
Williams, C. (Tavistock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sturrock, J. Leng
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir B. (Banbury)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Sugden, W. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)
McCurdy.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Proposed word "fourteen" there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the word "and" ["and an illegitimate child"].
If this Amendment be carried I shall propose to insert after the word "child" the words "a brother and a sister." This Amendment is so simple, is so undeniably just, and in its operation would prove so inexpensive, that it needs very little explanation. I hope to achieve the distinction of being the first Member this evening to win the approval of the Minister of Labour. The object of the Amendment is simply to secure that an employed person having a younger brother or a younger sister entirely dependent upon him shall be able to claim the dependants' grant of 1s. for that brother or sister. As the Clause stands in the Bill', it says that the expression "child" includes a step-child, an adopted child, and an illegitimate child. I put it to the Minister that surely a younger brother or sister of an employed person is just as much entitled to receive the grant as an illegitimate child? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That question is answered in this way, that the child that is dependent has no father, and possibly no mother, and the elder brother is responsible for the maintenance of that child. For that reason we consider that the State should provide for that child, just as the State provides for the illegitimate child of the father. Therefore, I hope we shall have the support of the Minister to this Amendment.

Mr. GUEST: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would supplement, the appeal made to the Minister of Labour, who, neither as Minister nor as schoolmaster, has been over-generous with his pupils to-night. We have pleaded very diligently, and have been very like the fishermen who toiled all night and caught nothing. This is an Amendment which
has the merit of being extremely modest, extremely just, and not very expensive. The principle of the Bill is that there shall be for the maintenance of a child under 14 years of age, or to assist in its maintenance, a grant or payment of 1s. per week. That will be paid without question when the father is head of the family and responsible for the maintenance of the child. Surely, no reasonable body of men would deny that payment when the elder brother was taking the responsibility of maintaining those of his brothers and sisters younger than himself. I think there is quite an equal, or even a larger, case to be made where the elder brother has taken upon himself the responsibility of this burden than when the father is the parent. I do hope that on this Clause, at all events, we may have the sympathy of the Minister of Labour.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps I may be allowed to take the effect of this Amendment, which is drafting, and that of the subsequent proposal of the hon. Member at the same time. In the Clause the expression "child" includes step-child, an adopted child, and an illegitimate child, and then, if this Amendment were made, a brother and a sister. I wish to express my sympathy with the case of the hon. Member, but I am afraid it is not so simple as he thinks. Further, a younger brother, which is what he has in mind, would, I think, be covered by the phrase "adopted child," so that from that point of view I do not think it is necessary. To add the words "brother and sister" is to give an indication which might result in many anomalies.

Mr. NAYLOR: If dependent. [HON. MEMBERS: "And under fourteen."]

Dr. MACNAMARA: I think my hon. Friend has got all he wants in the words "adopted child," which can cover a younger brother or sister. I do not think I could go further, for the reasons I have stated.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. R. YOUNG: I wish to make an appeal to the Minister, not on any humanitarian grounds at all, but on grounds of justice. By the reintroduction of a Clause which was left out in Committee, the amount for administration expenses is raised from 10 per cent, to 12½ per cent.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Not more than that.

Mr. YOUNG: It did not come out in the discussion to-night that the Minister has issued a circular to trade unions indicating that their administration expenses were to be considerably reduced. Can the Minister give the House any information in relation to that matter? Up to now trade unions have been in receipt of one shilling for administration expenses in respect of each week of unemployment dealt with. I understand that is going to be reduced on a graduated scale down to something like 30 per cent, of one shilling. Why is the Minister seeking this extra amount for administration, and at the same time reducing the allowance to the trade unions in the way indicated? Has any scheme as to this reduction been formulated, and if so can it be given to the House?
12 M.
I appeal to the Minister, as I say not on humanitarian grounds but on grounds of justice to see if he cannot even yet, accept the principle of a proposed new Clause which was moved to-day during his absence from the House but was rejected. It seeks to do justice to a deserving class. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are certain individuals doing work in connection with this scheme and doing their best to help him in the administration of unemployment benefit. Will he see that they themselves are not placed in a less favourable position than others regarding unemployment? They are in receipt of 21s. or 23s. a week, and as a result receive no benefit. I ask the Minister to make up to them the difference—the amount which they lose by the very fact of doing this work. As compared with the benefits paid to a man with several children, these men are in some cases losing three, four or five shillings per week. As the principle
has been introduced of boards of guardians having to take into account the income of the individual, something should be done to meet these cases. You ought not to take into account the amount paid to the man whatever be his subsidiary employment. If he gets 21s., he should receive the difference. Those who are helping the Minister to administer the Act ought not to be placed in the present invidious position. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the matter and get the Amendment made in another place.

Dr. MACNAMARA: Under Section 17, the trade unions that administer the Act get Is. per week of benefit paid. The Geddes Report recommended that this arrangement should be reviewed. This was done by a Committee set up for this and other purposes, and they recommended that the grant should be substantially reduced—the grant of 1s. per week of benefit paid. The grant will be on a scale following the general rate of unemployment. It is proposed that if the rate of unemployment does not exceed 4 per cent, the grant should be 6d.; exceeding 4 per cent, and not exceeding 8 per cent., 5d.; exceeding 8 per cent, and not exceeding 12 per cent., 4d.; and exceeding 12 per cent., 3d. My hon. Friend says: "You are going to take more money for administration; why touch this?" The arrangement under Section 17 does not affect the costs of the Department in anyway whatever. If my hon. Friend and his friends want to have any communication with me in this proposal to review this 1s. per week of benefit paid to the trade unions for administering Section 17, I shall be very glad to hear their representations. The other point referred to we have had in Committee, and in this House. It has reference to the 3s. 4d. per day paid. It is asked that we should raise this to 5s. Decisions have been given on several occasions against it. I do not quite follow whether or not my hon. Friend thought I could alter the situation. I cannot.

Mr. YOUNG: I did not ask that. What I asked my right hon. Friend was to make up by Amendment in another place the difference between 3s. 4d. and 5s. A man may lose 7s. a week by doing the work.

Dr. MACNAMARA: I do not quite follow. I do not think I can make any change in the structure of the Act. Of course I must not give an undertaking which I cannot carry out. I have had the advantage of hearing what my hon. Friends have said and I will bear it in mind. I think in conclusion I ought to say that I fully appreciate the sympathetic way in which hon. Members have assisted me with this Bill. I know that many hon. Members and right hon. Members take the view that in many respects the thing ought to be done differently, but they have expressed their view in the Division Lobby and there has been nothing in the nature of obstruction. Although our views have been sharply divergent there has been every desire on the part of those who differ that I should get this Bill through at the earliest possible moment, and I think it is due to them that I should express my thanks for the way they have assisted me.

KENYA DIVORCES (VALIDITY) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Resolved, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Mr. STEPHEN WALSH in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Validity of Decrees) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short Title.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major BARNES: May we have a word of explanation about this Bill. I do not
think we should pass this Measure without a word being said about it.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Edward Wood): I am quite willing to give a word of explanation about this Bill, and I am surprised that I have not been asked to do so earlier. This Measure deals with a purely technical matter, and the necessity for the Bill arises out of a practical invalidity. Hon. Members may be aware that in Kenya, ever since 1904, under the Kenya Ordinance, divorces have been granted. Those were held to be valid until last year when, by a decision of the High Court, it was held that, owing to the technical question of domicile, those divorces were not valid in the case of people resident in Kenya and maintaining a domicile in the United Kingdom. It will be remembered that the same point arose in connection with India last-year when the Indian Divorces (Validity) Act was passed into law. The same situation has arisen in Kenya as occurred in India, and that is why this Bill is necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Does this Bill refer to black people or to white people?

Mr. WOOD: It refers to anybody who has obtained a divorce under the Kenya Ordinance.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Thirteen Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.